Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Not necessarily. Time probably was shortened because of the looming trial date. You didn't say whether you had the opportunity to oppose the request. Nevertheless, if responses were due after the discovery cutoff date, the court should not grant relief, unless there's evidence of waiver on your part.

Not sure what you mean without ex parte proceeding? But you are entitled to notice of any meeting between the Judge and any party to your litigation. Typically in addition to Rules of Court that includes ex parte procedures set forth in BOTH the local rules and the Courtroom rules (with some judges).

Court clerks may have much say in a court calendar. There is nothing to prohibit a party from talking to a clerk.

But if there was a meeting with a judge and one party without notice that would be unusual.

Based on the limited fact, the Court can shorten time for service within nearly his orher complete discretion. Therefore, the hearing can be set and you would need notice of the new hearing.

Doing something without a proper ex parte application is improper ex parte contact with a judge, which violates the judicial cannons and can have the judge reprimanded and removed from office. But I think you may be missing something, and that an ex parte application was filed.

The fact that an order shortening time on the hearing was made does not make the motion timely filed. It just means the hearing is going to be heard earlier.