Sourdough & Co., Inc. v. WCSD, Inc., et al.,

Filing 30

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES under Case No. 2:20-cv-01226-TLN-CKD signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/31/2021 and ORDERING that all Discovery shall be completed no later than 11/30/2021. Expert Witnesses due by 1/31/2022. Supplemental designation of expert witnesses due by 2/28/2022. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 PETERSON WATTS LAW GROUP, LLP GLENN W. PETERSON, ESQ. (SBN 126173) ROBERT K. ASHLEY, ESQ. (SBN 306441) 2267 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 210 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: (916) 780-8222 Fax No: (916) 780-8775 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Sourdough & Co., Inc. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SOURDOUGH & CO., INC. 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 v. WCSD, INC., a California corporation; GSD FOODS, INC., a California corporation; GURMINDER BHATIA, an individual; DAVINDER SINGH, an individual; POWERGLIDE HOLDINGS, LLC, a California limited liability company; KALDEEP UPPAL, an individual; KARNDEEP UPPAL, an individual; and SD-FOLSOM, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-25, 21 WCSD Inc. dba West Coast Sourdough 100 Pine Street San Francisco, CA 94111, 22 23 24 25 26 27 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES AND MODIFY INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER ______________________________________ Defendants. 19 20 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01226-TLN-CKD Case No.: 2:20-cv-01538-TLN-CKD Plaintiff, vs. WESTCOASTSOURDOUGH.COM, a domain name subject to domain name authorities located in this judicial district and JOHN DOEES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants. AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 1 INTRODUCTION 2 The parties, through their respective undersigned counsel of record have met and conferred 3 concerning the most efficient and economical way to prepare these cases for trial and dispositive 4 motions prior to trial. The parties jointly represent to the Court the following good cause for 5 consolidation. 6 1. The claims, defenses and counterclaims underlying this action involve common 7 questions of law and fact, particularly with respect to trademark validity and likely confusion. The 8 prior action, 2:20-cv-01226 (‘226 action) involves disputed issues of trademark validity and there are 9 claims and counterclaims seeking trademark cancellation that would have a direct bearing on 10 ownership of the domain name, at issue in Case No. 2:20-cv-01538 (‘538 action). 11 12 2. It would economize both judicial resources as well as those of the parties herein to join these matters for all purposes, including discovery and trial. 13 3. Consolidation would also promote the convenience of the parties and other witnesses 14 by ensuring that overlapping witnesses in these cases need sit for deposition or trial testimony only 15 once. 16 4. If these cases are tried separately to different juries, there is also the potential for 17 inconsistent and conflicting findings of fact; to avoid this, one jury should decide all of the issues 18 underlying trademark validity, ownership and likely confusion or other infringements. 19 5. Therefore, to expedite, economize and streamline these matters before the Court, and 20 pursuant to FRCP Rule 42(a)(1) the parties jointly represent that consolidation is appropriate in these 21 matters and respectfully ask that the Court order the matters consolidated for all purposes and 22 subject the following schedule. 23 ANALYSIS 24 Under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may consolidate actions 25 when they involve “common questions of law or fact.” The decision whether to consolidate is 26 within the court’s discretion. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 27 1989). In determining whether to consolidate, the court should consider the interests of judicial 28 convenience against the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice. Rainwater v. McGinniss, No. 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 1 CIV S-10-1727 GGH P, 2011 WL 5041233, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011). The court may also 2 consider “‘the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues.’” Ellison 3 Framing Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co, Nos. Civ. S-11-0122 LKK/DAD, Civ. S-13-1761 JAM/AC, 4 2013 WL 6499058, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2013) (quoting Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 5 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982)). 6 MODIFICATIONS TO INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 7 The parties jointly request that the Initial Scheduling Order (“ISO”) be modified as proposed 8 9 below. Dates not provided for below would remain as set in the ISO. I. DISCOVERY 10 The parties request that all discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be 11 completed no later November 30, 2021. In this context, "completed" means that all discovery shall 12 have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery 13 shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary, and where discovery has been ordered, 14 the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate 15 judge's calendar in accordance with the Local Rules. 16 II. DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT WITNESSES 17 The parties request that the date for designation of expert witness be January 31, 2022. 18 All counsel are to designate in writing, file with the Court, and serve upon all other parties the 19 name, address, and area of expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at trial not later than 20 this date. The designation shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by the 21 witness. The report shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). 22 The parties request that the date for supplemental designation of expert witnesses be 23 February 28, 2022. Any party may designate a supplemental list of expert witnesses who will 24 express an opinion on a subject covered by an expert designated by an adverse party. The right to 25 designate a supplemental expert for rebuttal purposes only shall apply to a party who has not 26 previously disclosed an expert witness on the date set for expert disclosure by this Order. 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 1 III. SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), the parties shall exchange any 3 supplemental disclosures and responses (including expert supplemental materials) no later than thirty 4 (30) days prior to the dispositive motion hearing date. Any supplemental disclosures and responses 5 necessary after said date will require leave of Court good cause having been shown. 6 7 Except as noted above, all other dates identified in this Court’s Initial Scheduling Order would remain unchanged. 8 9 DATED: March 30, 2021 10 PETERSON WATTS LAW GROUP, LLP By: 11 /s/ GLENN W. PETERSON GLENN W. PETERSON Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant 12 13 14 DATED: March 30, 2021 HUGHEY PHILLIPS By: 15 16 /s/ GALEN M. GENTRY GALEN M. GENTRY Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainant 17 18 19 ORDER UPON STIPULATION: 20 Pursuant to the parties' joint Stipulation to Consolidate in this matter, and good cause 21 appearing, the Court now orders these two cases be consolidated under Case No. 2:20-cv-01226- 22 TLN-CKD and rescheduled as noted above. 23 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: March 31, 2021 25 26 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

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?