Ramirez v. Zimmerman

Opinion

JAIRO CERVANTES, et al., CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS: Plaintiffs, Case No. 17-cv-1230-BAS-AHG v. Case No. 18-cv-1062-BAS-AHG

SAN DIEGO POLICE CHIEF ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, et al., APPLICATION TO VACATE TRIAL DATE AND RELATED Defendants. DEADLINES [ECF No. 148]

Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM GORE, et al., Defendants.

On January 2, 2020, Defendants moved ex parte to request that the Court vacate the trial date, final pretrial conference, and all trial-related deadlines pending the Court’s decision on the cross-summary judgment motions filed in this action. (Ex Parte App., ECF No. 148.) The motions were fully briefed on December 23, 2019. ECF No. 131, 132.) Plaintiffs oppose a continuance of these dates on the grounds that the case has been pending for over three years and relies wholly on key footage contained in “586 bodyworn camera videos” produced in May 2019 that would resolve the case in Plaintiffs’ favor. the Senior Chief Deputy City Attorney, in response to Plaintiff’s opposition, contesting Plaintiffs’ statements about the production of the bodyworn camera footage. (ECF No. 150.) Ex parte relief is rarely justified. Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 490 (C.D. Cal. 1995). To be proper, an ex parte application must demonstrate good cause to allow the moving party “to go to the head of the line in front of all other litigants and receive special treatment.” Id. at 492. Accordingly, the use of an ex parte procedure is justified only when: (1) there is a threat of immediate or irreparable injury; (2) there is danger that notice to the other party may result in the destruction of evidence or the party’s flight; or (3) the party seeks a routine procedural order that cannot be obtained through a regularly noticed motion (i.e., to file an overlong brief or shorten the time within which a motion may be brought). Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1205 (C.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting In re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D.Cal.1989)). The Court construes Defendants’ request as one seeking a routine procedural order that cannot be obtained through a regularly noticed motion. Defendants allege that good cause exists to vacate trial-related deadlines because the recently-briefed summary judgment motions will likely not be resolved before the current trial date of March 31, 2020, and because the Court’s decision on those motions “will likely affect the scope of what is included in the parties’ pretrial disclosures, and will also impact the other pretrial procedures . . . .” (Ex Parte App. At 1.) The earliest trial-related deadline is the parties’ pretrial disclosures deadline, which is set for January 6, 2020. (First Am. Scheduling Order, ECF No. 124.) The Court finds that Defendants have stated good cause to vacate trial-related deadlines until the summary judgment motions have been resolved. The age of this litigation notwithstanding, it would be an impractical and inefficient use of judicial resources to require the parties and the Court to prepare for trial when the Court has yet to issue a decision on summary judgment motions that may be dispositive of some, or all, }claims or parties. Further, the majority of Plaintiffs’ objection does not state why Defendants’ request is not supported by good cause, but instead seeks to argue that the issues arising on summary judgment are “simple” and “straightforward” and shoulc therefore be resolved in Plaintiffs’ favor. This analysis of the merits is not the appropriate focus of an ex parte briefing. Jn re Intermagnetics Am., Inc., 101 B.R. at 194 (ex parte papers “ought properly to be addressed to the need to exceed the page limit or for shortenec time, rather than to the substance of the motion itself’). The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 148) anc VACATES the trial date, final pretrial conference, and all other trial-related deadlines pending the Court’s decision on the summary judgment motions filed in this action. , fl DATED: January 6, 2020 Lill 4 (Bashan. 6 United States District Judge