G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc.

Filing 382

ORDER RE: DEADLINE FOR REOPENED DISCOVERY. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/31/2020. (Kusamura, W)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC., RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-00321-SKO ORDER RE: DEADLINE FOR REOPENED DISCOVERY Defendants. 16 _____________________________________/ 17 GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC., 18 Counterclaimant, 19 20 v. 21 22 23 24 G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, Counter-defendant. _____________________________________/ 25 26 27 On May 26, 2020, the Court reopened discovery “for the limited purpose of addressing the 28 issue of damages that have occurred since the trial in this case and as a result of the additional alleged 1 breaches,” and ordered such discovery be completed by no later than June 30, 2020. (Doc. 366 at 2 14.) A dispute thereafter arose as to the scope of the discovery permitted, and the parties filed cross3 motions to compel. (See Docs. 373 & 374.) 4 On July 9, 2020, the Court denied Defendant/Counterclaimant Guardian Protection 5 Products, Inc. (“Guardian”)’s motion to compel and granted in part Plaintiff/Counter-defendant 6 G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions (“GIS”)’s motion to compel. (See Doc. 378.) The 7 Court also extended the deadline by which to complete the reopened discovery to August 7, 2020, 8 and continued the Pretrial Conference to September 2, 2020 accordingly. (See id. at 10.) 9 On July 17, 2020, GIS moved for reconsideration of the portion of the Court’s July 9, 2020 10 order denying GIS permission to seek discovery of lost commissions for sales made within all 11 territories covered by the Bob’s Agreement, not just the territories covered by the Florida, Mid12 Atlantic, and Cook County Agreements. (See Doc. 379.) GIS’s motion for reconsideration is 13 noticed for hearing on August 19, 2020—twelve days after the deadline to complete the reopened 14 discovery. 15 On July 29, 2020, Guardian filed an “Ex Parte Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order” 16 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), seeking an extension of the August 7, 2020 discovery deadline 17 and leave to conduct additional discovery, in view of having “recently discovered information 18 pertaining to its defense in this matter that had not been previously disclosed by GIS.” (Doc. 380.) 19 Guardian did not seek an order shortening the time for its motion to be heard. (See Local Rule 20 144(e).) 21 Both GIS’s motion for reconsideration and Guardian’s ex parte motion to modify the 22 scheduling order seek permission to conduct discovery beyond the current deadline. Since both 23 parties have effectively requested the Court to enlarge the discovery deadline, they are hereby 24 ORDERED to meet and confer to reach an agreement on such deadline. 25 By no later than August 7, 2020, the parties SHALL inform the Court of their agreed-upon 26 discovery deadline. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a date, they SHALL, by no 27 28 2 1 later than August 7, 2020, file a joint statement of no more than five (5) pages in length, setting forth 2 their meet and confer efforts and respective positions.1 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: July 31, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Guardian’s ex parte motion to modify the scheduling order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (Doc. 380) is DENIED as MOOT insofar as it seeks to enlarge the August 7, 2020 discovery deadline. The Court does not consider Guardian’s request for additional relief in its motion (see Doc. 380-1 at 13), as such does not fall within the scope of relief available under Rule 16(b)(4). 1 3

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?