IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 19, 2012
NUCAL FOODS, INC., PLAINTIFF,
QUALITY EGG LLC; ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
This matter comes before the court upon defendant Austin "Jack" DeCoster's ("defendant") request for an order shortening time for hearing his motion to modify the scheduling order. (ECF 93.) Defendant's request is denied.
Local Rule 144 states: "Applications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time. Ex parte applications to shorten time will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order and for the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the action." The court may grant an application for an order shortening time "for good cause." FED. R. CIV. P. 6(c)(1)(C); see, e.g., Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp., No. C 07-05658, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51079, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2009); see also Faulkner v. County of Kern, No. 1:04-cv-05964-OWW-TAG, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3410, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2006). "[A] fundamental purpose of the adversary system [is] to give the court the best possible presentation of the merits and demerits of the case on each side. The opposing party can rarely make its best presentation on such short notice." Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 883 F.Supp. 488, 491 (C.D. Cal. 1995). "[C]courts generally require that the applicant demonstrate circumstances showing that (1) the applicant is not the cause of its own predicament, and (2) the order is 'needed' to avoid some type of harm." Hanger Prosthetics & Orthotics, Inc. v. Capstone Orthopedic, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-02879-GEB-KJM, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85849, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2007).
Defendant requests the court advance the hearing on his motion because the court has done so with a motion to modify the scheduling order filed by the Hillandale defendants (ECF 89).*fn1 (Notice of Mot. at 2.) This is not good cause.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.