IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 6, 2012
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE
On June 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed an ex parte request for a ten (10) day extension to disclose a rebuttal insurance claims expert. (ECF No. 14.) In support of the request, Plaintiff's counsel declares in relevant part as follows:
3. Defendant disclosed an insurance claims expert.
4. I have forwarded monies and the claim file to Insurance Claims Expert Kevin Dawson.
5. He has informed me that he will not be able to generate an opinion today, and June 7, 2012 is the disclosure date for our rebuttal expert. I am looking for actively looking for another expert, and meeting today with Insurance Expert Clint Miller.
6. I have contacted defense counsel, and requested an extension, and he, I'm told by his staff, is in deposition. I have also emailed him as well, and not received a reply.
7. I request a 10-day extension to respond. The parties recently stipulated to an extension on discovery, and Defendant just recently provided additional discovery responses. The trial is not till 2013.
Id. at ¶¶ 3-7.*fn1
Plaintiff's counsel's conclusory averments do not show "circumstances . . . justify[ing] the issuance of an order [on shortened] time" as required by E.D. Cal. R. 144(e). Further, Plaintiff's counsel has not "satisfactor[ily] expla[ined] . . . [his] failure . . . to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel[.]" Here, it is unclear precisely when Plaintiff's counsel sought the referenced stipulation, and whether Defendant's counsel was provided sufficient time to respond. For the stated reasons, Plaintiff's ex parte request is denied.