Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd v. Orellana et al

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND REFERRING IN PART TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAPORTE STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND VARIOUS DEADLINES. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing the settlement conference from February 11, 2010 to March 4, 2010, the stipulation is referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing other deadlines and dates, the stipulation is denied. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 10, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Although the stipulation refers to the existing deadline as December 25, 2009, the deadline was extended, at the parties' request, to January 31, 2010. (See Order, filed December 9, 2009.)
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KINGVISION PAY-PER-VIEW, LTD., Plaintiff v. HECTOR ANTONIO ORELLANA, et al., Defendants /

No. C-09-0219 MMC ORDER DENYING IN PART AND REFERRING IN PART TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE LAPORTE STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND VARIOUS DEADLINES

United States District Court

Before the Court is the parties' Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference and Various Deadlines, filed February 8, 2010. Having read and considered the stipulation, the Court rules as follows: 1. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing the settlement conference from February 11, 2010 to March 4, 2010, the stipulation is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. 2. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing the non-expert discovery deadline from January 31, 20101 to April 1, 2010, the stipulation is hereby DENIED for the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

reason that the parties have failed to show good cause exists for such an extension.2 3. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing the deadlines to designate experts, to complete expert discovery, and to file dispositive motions, the stipulation is hereby DENIED, for the reason that the parties fail to address the effect of those proposed extensions on the remaining pretrial dates, specifically, the May 25, 2010 Pretrial Conference and the June 7, 2010 trial date. For example, if the Court were to extend the deadline to file dispositive motions to May 10, 2010, as the parties request, the hearing on any such motions would be conducted, under the Local Rules of this District, on June 18, 2010, which date is after the first date of the trial. 4. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing the Status Conference from March 5, 2010 to May 7, 2010, a date only eighteen days before the Pretrial Conference, the stipulation is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

The sole reason offered by the parties in support of the request is that the parties engaged in settlement discussions during the first week of February 2010. The parties fail to explain why discussions occurring after the deadline to complete non-expert discovery serve to excuse any prior failure to complete non-expert discovery. 2

2