Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al v. D&L Elite Investments, LLC et al

Filing 112

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 10/16/2013.. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/11/2013. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC., and
THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION,

No. C 12-04516 SC (LB)

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiffs,
13

v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14
15
16
17

D&L ELITE INVESTMENTS, LLC, a
California limited liability company d/b/a G
BAY INTERNATIONAL; BILLY DENG, an
individual; WEISHEN LUO, an individual;
and JOHN DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

18
19

Plaintiff Black & Decker filed Lanham Act and unfair competition claims against Defendants for

20

allegedly dealing counterfeit products. See Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 Black & Decker moved for

21

sanctions on the ground that Defendant Billy Deng destroyed the computer he used to conduct

22

Defendant D&L Elite Investments LLC’s business operations in a deliberate attempt to cover up the

23

scope of his wrongdoing. See Motion, ECF No. 105 at 3 (seeking an adverse inference instruction,

24

attorney’s fees, and costs). On September 24, 2013, the district court referred all discovery matters

25

to this court, including Black & Decker’s sanctions motion. See Order Referring Case, ECF No.

26

108. On September 26, this court issued a notice of referral stating that “[t]he briefing schedule

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.
C 12-04516 SC (LB)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

required by Civil Local Rule 7-3 remains in effect (with the opposition due on October 4, 2013, and

2

the optional reply due on October 11, 2013).” ECF No. 109.

3

Defendants have neither opposed Plaintiffs motion nor filed a statement of non-opposition as

4

required by the Civil Local Rules, and the deadlines have passed. See generally Docket. The parties

5

also just filed a joint discovery letter brief on a different issue. See ECF No. 111. The court

6

understands that there is a pending motion to withdraw, but that does not alter counsel’s obligations

7

now.

not be granted. Defendants’ counsel must respond to this order by Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at

10

noon, and in it, they must provide an explanation and (after conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel) set

11

forth the parties’ joint proposed briefing schedule. That schedule must comply with the local rules

12
For the Northern District of California

Accordingly, the court ORDERS Defendants to show cause why the sanctions motion should

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

and must provide for the filing of an opposition brief no later than October 24, 2013.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2013
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 12-04516 SC (LB)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2