The Eclipse Group LLP v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 129

ORDER Granting Intervenor's #117 Ex Parte Motion to Extend Certain Dates. It is ordered that the Mandatory Settlement Conference is set for 12/4/2017 at 01:30 p.m. Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law is due by 1/18/2018. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 2/8/2018. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/15/2018 at 01:30 p.m. before Judge Janis L. Sammartino. All guidelines and requirements remain as previously set. See ECF No. 68. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 5/23/2017. (dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Case No.: 15cv1411-JLS (BLM)

THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP,

ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR’S EX
PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND CERTAIN
DATES

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

TARGET CORPORATION, et al,

14

[ECF NO. 117]
Defendants.

15
16

Currently before the Court is Intervenor’s April 19, 2017 ex parte motion to extend certain

17

deadlines [ECF No. 117-1 (“Mot.”)] and Defendants’ opposition to the motion [ECF No. 118

18

(“Oppo.”)].

19

Intervenor seeks to continue the April 24, 2017 deadline for expert reports to May 22,

20

2017, the May 9, 2017 deadline for contradictory or rebuttal evidence to June 5, 2017, the May

21

30, 2017 deadline for completing expert discovery to June 19, 2017, and the July 19, 2017

22

Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) to September 13, 2017. Mot. at 2, 4. In support,

23

Intervenor argues that he requires key information from Defendants “which is critical to the

24

expert’s analysis and valuation of damages, and which so far Defendants have refused to

25

produce.” Id. at 2. Intervenor also argues that his expert report would be incomplete without

26

the missing discovery and that there would be no prejudice to Defendants. Id. at 2-3. In further

27

support, Intervenor states that he has been occupied for the last two weeks preparing summary

28

judgment briefing in a copyright case in Los Angeles and that supplemental expert reports do
1

15cv1411-JLS (BLM)

1

not make sense. Id. at 2-3. With respect to the MSC, Intervenor states that he is scheduled to

2

begin a jury trial on July 11, 2017 which will conflict with the MSC and that he has a vacation

3

planned for August 2017. Id. at 3-4.

4

On April 21, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition to Intervenor’s motion.1 Oppo.

5

Defendants contend that Intervenor has already filed a motion seeking this relief that was

6

previously denied by the Court and that the instant motion “does not substantially address the

7

shortcomings of his prior ex parte application.” Id. at 2. Defendants do not believe that the

8

motion should be granted based upon Intervenor’s pending motion to compel [see ECF No. 83]

9

because Intervenor “is unlikely to obtain any relief on his motion[s].” Id. at 3. Defendants note

10

that Intervenor has failed to specifically state which documents or information are relevant to

11

his expert reports or to disclose the actual document requests upon which he bases his request

12

for a continuance. Id. Defendants also contend that Intervenor has failed to explain how the

13

information he seeks is necessary for his expert reports or why supplemental reports would

14

“make no sense.” Id. at 6-7. Defendants further contend that Intervenor should have included

15

a declaration from his expert with his request for relief and that Intervenor himself is to blame

16

for any delays in the rulings on his motions to compel for failing to comply with the Court’s

17

orders. Id. at 7. Finally, Defendants argue that Intervenor’s current work load in other matters

18

does not support a continuation of the expert deadlines.

19

Intervenor’s request to continue the Mandatory Settlement Conference, but note that it may be

20

premature to continue the conference as Intervenor’s case “may be decided on summary

21

judgment or settle before trial.” Id. at 8.

Id.

Defendants do not oppose

22

Intervenor’s motion to continue the deadlines for expert reports, contradictory or rebuttal

23

evidence, completing expert discovery, and the MSC is GRANTED. The Court notes that both

24

Intervenor and Defendants have filed lengthy discovery motions and are vigorously opposing

25

each other’s motions. See ECF Nos. 83, 88, 91, 97-98, 100-101, 103, 105, 108-126. Given the

26

inability of the parties to conduct discovery in a reasonable manner, the Court finds it necessary

27

28

1

Intervenor states that Plaintiff “agreed to the relief sought.” Mot. at 2 n1.
2

15cv1411-JLS (BLM)

1

to continue the remaining dates as follows:
Current Deadline

2

New Deadline

3

Expert Reports

April 24, 2017

July 28, 2017

4

Supplemental Disclosures

May 9, 2017

August 18, 2017

Expert Discovery

May 30, 2017

September 22, 2017

Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”)

July 19, 2016
at 9:30 a.m.

December 4, 2017
at 1:30 p.m.

8

MSC Briefs

July 10, 2017

November 27, 2017

9

Pretrial Motion Filing

June 20, 2017

October 20, 2017

10

Pretrial Disclosure

September 28, 2017

January 18, 2018

11

Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law

September 28, 2017

January 18, 2018

12

L.R. 16.1(f)(4) Meeting

October 5, 2017

January 25, 2018

13

Exchange Proposed Pretrial Order

October 12, 2017

February 1, 2018

14

Lodge Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order

October 19, 2017

February 8, 2018

Final Pretrial Conference

October 26, 2017
at 1:30 p.m.

February 15, 2018
at 1:30 p.m.

5
6
7

15
16
17
18
19
20

All guidelines and requirements remain as previously set. See ECF No. 68.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/23/2017

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

15cv1411-JLS (BLM)