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

Filing 386

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR REOPENED DISCOVERY AND CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; Discovery due by 10/6/2020, Pretrial Conference currently set for 9/2/2020 is continued to 11/4/2020 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 7 (SKO) before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/12/2020. (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 16 v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC., RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC., Defendants. _____________________________________/ 17 18 GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC., 19 Counterclaimant, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, Counter-defendant. _____________________________________/ Case No. 1:15-cv-00321-SKO ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR REOPENED DISCOVERY AND CONTINUING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 1 On July 31, 2020, the Court observed that since both Plaintiff/Counter-defendant G.P.P., 2 Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions (“GIS”)’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 379) and 3 Defendant/Counterclaimant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (“Guardian”)’s ex parte motion to 4 modify the scheduling order (Doc. 380) sought permission to conduct discovery beyond the 5 discovery deadline of August 7, 2020, the parties have “effectively requested the Court to enlarge 6 the discovery deadline.” (Doc. 382.) The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to reach an 7 agreement on such deadline and, if they could not agree, to file a joint statement of no more than 8 five pages in length, setting forth their meet and confer efforts and respective positions. (See id. at 9 2–3.) Because the Court granted the parties’ effective request to enlarge the deadline, and ordered 10 the parties to attempt to agree on the enlargement, Guardian’s ex parte motion to modify the 11 scheduling order was denied as moot. (See id. at n.1.) 12 On August 7, 2020, the parties timely filed a joint statement indicating that they could not 13 agree upon a new discovery deadline. (Doc. 384.) GIS takes the position that “[i]t is not necessary 14 to extend fact discovery beyond the current deadline” and “the Court should maintain the current 15 schedule.” (Id. at 2, 4.) The “current schedule” cannot be maintained, however, because the 16 discovery deadline has now passed. Moreover, GIS acknowledges that, should the Court grant its 17 motion for reconsideration, discovery would need to be reopened, albeit “for the narrow purpose of 18 ordering Guardian to produce the data sought by GIS’s May 29 document request.” (Id. at 2.) 19 Guardian’s position is that “an extension of the current discovery cut-off by at least 90 days 20 is necessary for it to complete discovery and file any necessary motions to permit it to conduct this 21 discovery in the first place.” (Doc. 384 at 6–7.) 22 In view of the parties’ inability to agree on an enlarged deadline that they effectively 23 requested, and were granted, and considering each party’s respective basis for such request, the 24 Court finds that 60 days is a reasonable extension from the now-expired August 7, 2020 re-opened 25 discovery deadline. Such extension will accommodate GIS’s need for re-opened discovery in the 26 event its motion for reconsideration is granted, and it will also allow for Guardian to propound the 27 discovery it claims is necessary. To the extent any disputes arise concerning whether discovery 28 2 1 served during this period is within the scope of that permitted by this Court, a 60-day enlargement 2 also allow sufficient time for resolution of those disputes pursuant to Local Rule 251.1 3 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: 4 1. 5 The deadline by which to complete the permitted discovery in this case is EXTENDED to October 6, 2020; and 6 2. To allow time for the parties to complete the discovery, the Pretrial Conference, 7 currently set for September 2, 2020, CONTINUED to November 4, 2020, at 3:30 8 P.M. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, United States 9 Magistrate Judge. The parties shall file a Joint Pretrial Statement pursuant to Local 10 Rule 281(a)(2) and submit a digital copy of their Pretrial Statement in Word format, 11 directly 12 SKOorders@caed.uscourts.gov. to Magistrate Judge Oberto’s chambers by email at 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: August 12, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 At this time, the Court takes no position on whether discovery proposed by either party in their Joint Statement (see, e.g., Doc. 384 at 4 n.1, 6) falls within the scope of permitted discovery, as such discovery requests are not before the Court. 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?