CSL Silicones, Inc v. Midsun Group Inc

Filing 67

ORDER granting defendant's 61 Opposed Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order, and denying plaintiff's 62 Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order. The Court hereby enters the following Amended Scheduling Order: fact discovery due by October 31, 2016; all discovery, including expert depositions, due by November 30, 2016; dispositive motions due by December 13, 2016. See attached Order for other interim deadlines. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 4/1/2016. (Katz, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
CSL SILICONES, INC.
:
:
v.
:
:
MIDSUN GROUP, INC.
:
:
------------------------------x

Civil No. 3:14CV01897(CSH)

April 1, 2016

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS TO MODIFY
THE SCHEDULING ORDER [Doc. ##61,62]
Pending before the Court is the motion of defendant Midsun
Group, Inc. (“defendant”) to modify the current scheduling
order. [Doc. #61]. Plaintiff CSL Silicones, Inc. (“plaintiff”)
has cross-moved to modify the scheduling order, and proposes a
shorter extension of the scheduling order deadlines than that
proposed by defendant. [Doc. #62]. Upon review, and for the
reasons articulated below, the Court GRANTS defendant’s Opposed
Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order [Doc. #61], and DENIES
plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order [Doc. #62].
Defendant seeks an eight-month extension of the original
scheduling order deadlines, contending that: such an extension
is reasonable in light of the posture of the case; good cause
supports the request; and that the requested extension would not
result in prejudice to plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that
1

defendant’s requested extension is unduly long in light of the
age of the case, and instead requests a five-month extension of
the current scheduling order deadlines, commencing with the
deadline for plaintiff’s expert disclosures. Plaintiff also
argues that good cause supports its request and submits that any
delay beyond its requested five-month extension would be
prejudicial as defendant continues to use infringing marks
belonging to plaintiff.
The parties’ competing schedules differ by just one month.
Compare Doc. #61 at 3 (defendant’s proposed schedule requesting,
inter alia, a fact discovery deadline of October 31, 2016, and a
dispositive motions deadline of December 13, 2016), with Doc.
#63 at 4 (plaintiff’s proposed schedule requesting, inter alia,
a fact discovery deadline of September 29, 2016, and a
dispositive motions deadline of November 13, 2016).1 Although
plaintiff may suffer some prejudice by extending the deadlines
an additional month past that requested, any such prejudice

1

In the future, the parties are encouraged to make a more
concerted effort to reach compromise without requiring Court
intervention. The language of plaintiff’s motion suggests that
the parties are light years apart in their requested deadlines.
See Doc. # 63 at 5-6 (describing plaintiff’s request as
“reasonable” and defendant’s request as “a significant
extension,” “unduly long,” and causing “undue delay”). Yet, a
review of the proposed schedules reflects that the parties are
in fact in the same galaxy, and orbiting the same planet.
2

posed would be minimal in light of the five-month extension
sought by plaintiff. Further, by entering defendant’s proposed
schedule, the Court hopes to obviate the need for any further
extensions of the scheduling order. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS defendant’s Opposed Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order
[Doc. #61], and DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the
Scheduling Order [Doc. #62].
Therefore, the Court hereby enters the following Amended
Scheduling Order:


Defendant shall file a response to the Complaint within
thirty (30) days of the Court’s ruling on defendant’s
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. #64];



Plaintiff shall file any motion to join additional
parties or amend the pleadings (if applicable) within
forty-five (45) days of the Court’s ruling on defendant’s
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. #64];



Defendant shall file any motion to join additional
parties or amend the pleadings (if applicable) within
fourteen (14) days of plaintiff’s motion to join
additional parties or amend the pleadings (if any);



August 15, 2016, for plaintiff to designate any trial
experts and disclose Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) material;
3



August 15, 2016, for plaintiff to provide a damages
analysis;



September 15, 2016, for defendant to designate any trial
experts and disclose Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) material;



September 15, 2016, for defendant (if a counterclaim is
then pending) to provide a damages analysis;



October 31, 2016, for the completion of fact discovery;



November 30, 2016, for the completion of all discovery,
including the depositions of all experts (and rebuttal
experts) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4);



December 13, 2016, for the filing of dispositive motions;



The Joint Trial Memorandum shall be filed on or before
February 6, 2017, or within sixty (60) days of the
Court’s ruling on the last pending dispositive motion,
whichever is later; and



This matter shall be trial ready by March 6, 2017, or
thirty (30) days from the date on which the joint trail
memorandum is filed, whichever is later.

The parties are advised that agreements regarding
particular deadlines will not constitute extensions of those
deadlines, and that the Court will not be bound by any informal

4

agreements of the parties. The Court expects the parties to
continue to pursue this matter in a timely fashion.
Further, absent extraordinary circumstances, and in light
of the schedule entered above, the Court does not anticipate
granting any further extensions of the now-effective scheduling
order deadlines.
The parties are encouraged to contact chambers to schedule
a follow-up settlement conference, should it become productive
to do so.
This is not a Recommended Ruling. This is an order
regarding case management which is reviewable pursuant to the
“clearly erroneous” statutory standard of review. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R.
72.2. As such, it is an order of the Court unless reversed or
modified by the District Judge upon motion timely made.
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 1st day of April
2016.
/s/
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5