Christensen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIN CHRISTENSEN, No. 2:18-cv-02776-MCE-KJN Plaintiff, v. ORDER GOODMAN DISTRIBUTION, INC. et al., (ECF No. 39) Defendants. 16 Presently before the court are defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff’s experts and defendant’s motion to shorten time to hear such motion. (ECF Nos. 39, 40.) The court DENIES defendant’s present request to shorten time. (ECF No. 39.) Pursuant to Local Rule 144(e) applications to shorten time must contain a “satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order.” Courts generally look at ex parte applications with disfavor. See Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (“It is rare that a lawyer’s credibility is more on the line, more vulnerable, than when he or she has created this kind of interruption. Lawyers must understand that filing an ex parte motion, whether of the pure or hybrid type, is the forensic equivalent…