Toyrrific LLC v. Edvin Karapetian et al

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO AMEND the Courts scheduling order 47 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: (lc) .Modified on 3/19/2013 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14

TOYRRIFIC, LLC,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-cv-04499-ODW(Ex)
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO AMEND [47]

EDVIN KARAPETIAN, EDWARD
MINASYAN, LENA AMERKHANIAN,
and EDO TRADING, INC.,
Defendants.

15
16

The Court has received Plaintiff Toyrrific, LLC’s ex parte application to amend

17

the Court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 47), which is based largely on the assertion

18

that several of Defendants discovery responses were deficient. But the discovery cut-

19

off in this matter was March 11, 2013 (ECF No. 39), and Toyrrific filed this

20

application on March 18—an entire week after the close of discovery. As the Court’s

21

Scheduling Order prominently notes, the discovery cut-off date “IS NOT THE

22

DATE BY WHICH DISCOVERY REQUESTS MUST BE SERVED; IT IS THE

23

DATE BY WHICH ALL DISCOVERY MUST BE COMPLETED.” (Id. at 2

24

(emphasis in original).) Because it seeks to amend the Scheduling Order based in part

25

“on the need for Motions to Compel Discovery,” Toyrrific has waited too long to

26

bring these discovery issues before the Court.

27

The Court recognizes that Toyrrific’s current counsel substituted into this case

28

on December 19, 2012, and may have faced challenges in catching up to speed on the

1

case. But counsel could have sought a stipulation to continue the discovery cut-off

2

date or petitioned the Court for an extension any time within the three months that

3

elapsed between the time that counsel received the case and the close of discovery.

4

As a result, Toyrrific cannot establish that it “is without fault in creating the crisis that

5

requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect.”

6

Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Cont’l Casualty Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal.

7

1995). Toyrrific’s request is therefore DENIED as untimely.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

March 18, 2012

12
13
14

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2