Filed: Sep. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO LIMIT THE MOTIONS TO BE HEARD AT THE OCTOBER 24, 2019 HEARING TO THE SEVEN (7) CATALOGUED IN ECF 46, AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ALLOW THE NON-ELECTRONIC FILING OF TWO (2) EXHIBITS (ECF Nos. 53, 57) JANIS L. SAMMARTINO , District Judge . Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett's Ex Parte Motions (1) to Limit the Motions to be Heard at the October 24, 2019 hearing t
Summary: ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO LIMIT THE MOTIONS TO BE HEARD AT THE OCTOBER 24, 2019 HEARING TO THE SEVEN (7) CATALOGUED IN ECF 46, AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ALLOW THE NON-ELECTRONIC FILING OF TWO (2) EXHIBITS (ECF Nos. 53, 57) JANIS L. SAMMARTINO , District Judge . Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett's Ex Parte Motions (1) to Limit the Motions to be Heard at the October 24, 2019 hearing to..
More
ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO LIMIT THE MOTIONS TO BE HEARD AT THE OCTOBER 24, 2019 HEARING TO THE SEVEN (7) CATALOGUED IN ECF 46, AND (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ALLOW THE NON-ELECTRONIC FILING OF TWO (2) EXHIBITS
(ECF Nos. 53, 57)
JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett's Ex Parte Motions (1) to Limit the Motions to be Heard at the October 24, 2019 hearing to the seven (7) Catalogues in ECF No. 46 ("Hearing Ex Parte," ECF No. 53), and (2) for Leave of the Court to Allow the Non-electronic Filing of Two (2) Exhibits Which Are Not Convertible to Electronic Form Pursuant to Electronic Case Filing Procedures Manual Section 2k in Regard to Opposition to Sherman Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 40 ("Non-Electronic Filing Ex Parte," ECF No. 57).
In the Hearing Ex Parte, Plaintiff requests that the Court hear only her motion for sanctions (ECF No. 45) and motion to compel the Clerk to enter default (ECF No. 29) and Defendants' motions (ECF Nos. 18, 19, 37, 40, 41) on October 24, 2019, and to continue the hearing on the motions for attorneys' fees (ECF Nos. 49, 54) to another date. Hearing Ex Parte at 2-3.
"The Court has inherent power to control its docket `in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.'" In re Galena Biopharma, Inc. Derivative Litig., 83 F.Supp.3d 1033, 1042 (D. Or. 2015) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The Court has determined that hearing together all motions stemming from Defendants' responses to Plaintiff First Amended Complaint will best promote these interests. Although the Court understands that Plaintiff must respond to several motions, these motions present several overlapping issues that Plaintiff may adequately address within the forty pages granted her. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Hearing Ex Parte (ECF No. 53).
In her Non-Electronic Filing Ex Parte, Plaintiff requests leave to file non-electronically two tapes of voicemail messages. Non-Electronic Filing Ex Parte at 2-3. Without making a ruling as to the admissibility of Plaintiff's proposed exhibits,1 the Court GRANTS the Non-Electronic Filing Ex Parte (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff SHALL LODGE a compact disc ("CD") or digital versatile disc ("DVD") containing the aforementioned exhibits and SHALL PROVIDE a courtesy copy of the CD or DVD to the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
