Presstek, Inc. et al v. Eastman Kodak Company
ORDER granting 18 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order as set forth in this Order by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/04/09.(jjh, ) Modified on 11/4/2009 (jjh, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-00750-RPM-MJW PRESSTECK, INC., and KEVIN RAY, PH.D, Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants, v. EASTMAN KODAK CORPORATION, Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER (DOCKET NO. 18) Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (docket no. 18). The court has reviewed the subject motion (docket no. 18), the response (docket no. 23), and the reply (docket no. 33). In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court's file and has considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The court finds: 1. That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties to this lawsuit;
2 2. 3. That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado; That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to be heard; 4. That Plaintiff Dr. Kevin Ray ("Plaintiff"), a former Defendant Kodak employee, along with Plaintiff's current employer, Presstek, have filed this declaratory judgment action against Defendant Kodak requesting a ruling from this court that the non-competition clause in the Employee's Agreement that Plaintiff signed is void and unenforceable under Colorado law. Defendant Kodak has counterclaimed for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets; 5. That pending are cross-motions to compel (docket nos. 21 and 28) that have also been referred to Magistrate Judge Watanabe. See Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge of Discovery Disputes (docket no. 39); 6. That there is also pending Defendant's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 4), and Judge Matsch has indicated he will not set a hearing on the Defendant's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 4) until the discovery disputes are resolved. See docket no. 39; 7. That a Scheduling Order "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); and 8. That Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to extend discovery
3 deadlines in this case. ORDER WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court ORDERS: 1. That Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (docket no. 18) is GRANTED; 2. That the Rule 16 Scheduling Order (docket no. 12) is amended as follows: a. b. Discovery cut-off is extended to January 13, 2010; Initial disclosure of experts is extended to December 14, 2009; c. Rebuttal expert disclosure is extended to December 29, 2009; and, d. Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents shall be served on or before November 30, 2009; 3. That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for the subject motion (docket no. 18). Done this 4th day of November 2009. BY THE COURT s/ Michael J. Watanabe MICHAEL J. WATANABE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?