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).

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?