Rocket Dog Brands, LLC v. GMI Corporation

Filing 57

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENLARGE BRIEFING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 50 51 52 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/24/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Case No. C 12-4643 SI

ROCKET DOG BRANDS, LLC,

12

14
15

v.
GMI CORPORATION,

16

Defendant.
/

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ENLARGE BRIEFING ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SHORTEN
TIME; DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Plaintiff,

13

On July 12, 2013, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and noticed the motion for
a hearing on August 16, 2013. Plaintiff filed a motion to enlarge the briefing on defendant’s motion,
requesting an additional two weeks to file an opposition to the motion, and seeking a new hearing date
of September 6, 2013. The Court finds that plaintiff has shown good cause for an extension, GRANTS
plaintiff’s motion, and sets the following schedule on defendant’s motion for summary judgment:
opposition due August 9, 2013; reply due August 23, 2013; hearing at 9:00 am on September 6, 2013.
Defendant has filed a motion to stay discovery, as well as a motion to shorten time on the motion
to stay. Defendant asserts that discovery should be stayed because its pending motion for summary
judgment is based on undisputed facts and a stay of discovery will promote judicial efficiency and
economy. Plaintiff opposes a stay of discovery1 for a number of reasons, including its assertion that it

28
1

Plaintiff set forth its position on defendant’s stay motion in the parties’ July 12, 2013 joint case
management conference statement.

1

needs discovery in order to oppose defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court has reviewed

2

defendant’s stay motion and finds that defendant has not shown that a stay of discovery is appropriate,

3

and thus the Court does not require full briefing or argument on that motion. The Court DENIES

4

defendant’s motion for a stay of discovery and DENIES defendant’s motion to shorten time.

5

This order resolves Docket Nos. 50, 51 and 52.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: July 24, 2013

SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2