Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems LLC v. Real Action Paintball Inc et al

Filing 228

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 224 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 209 MOTION for Default Judgment as to all Defendants by Defendants KT Tran, Real Action Paintball Inc. All Defendants GRANTED until 3/11/2013 to serve a Respo nse to 209 MOTION for Default Judgment by Plaintiff Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems LLC. If Defendants wish to file a transcript of Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems LLC's 30(b)(6) deposition under seal, the Court will grant them leave to do so. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 3/7/13. (cer)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ADVANCED TACTICAL ORDNANCE
SYSTEMS, LLC, an Indiana Limited
Liability Company d/b/a PepperBall
Technologies,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
REAL ACTION PAINTBALL, INC., a
California Corporation, K.T. TRAN,
individually, CONRAD SUN, individually,
CONRAD SUN, LLC, TRACS PACIFIC
CORP., TRACS PACIFIC HK, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants.

Cause No. 1:12-CV-296

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Real Action Paintball, Inc. and K.T. Tran’s
(collectively, “RAP4”) Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Motion for Default
Judgment. (Docket # 224.) Plaintiff Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC (“ATO”)
objects to the motion (Docket # 226), but the Sun Defendants do not, requesting only that any
extension of time to respond given to RAP4 also be given to them (Docket # 225).
Currently, RAP4’s response to ATO’s motion for default judgment is due today, March
7, 2013. (Docket # 224 at 1.) The intent of the deadline is that it will afford the Court, if it
wishes to do so, the opportunity to consider the Motion for Default Judgment at the next
evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, RAP4 believes that testimony given during ATO’s 30(b)(6)
deposition contradicts ATO’s representations in its motion for default judgment, and, therefore,

1

RAP4 contends that it needs the final deposition transcript to cite these contradictions and fully
respond to ATO’s motion. (Docket # 224 at 1.) Under the terms of the protective order,
however, the court reporter apparently cannot release the final deposition transcript until ATO
makes its designations of confidential information, which it has thirty days from receipt of the
transcript to do. (Docket # 224 at 1-2.) RAP4 estimates that this transcript would not be
available until April 11, 2013, and as such, requests that its time to respond be extended to the
earlier of April 18, 2013, or seven days after the court reporter releases the final transcript of
ATO’s 30(b)(6) deposition. (Docket # 224 at 2.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), RAP4 must show “good cause” for
the requested extension of time. See Murphy v. Eddie Murphy Prods., Inc., 611 F.3d 322, 324
(7th Cir. 2010) (“A motion filed before the deadline may be granted ‘for good cause,’. . . .”
(quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(A)). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the
party seeking the extension. Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 720 (7th Cir. 2011); Smith
v. Howe Military Sch., No. 3:96-CV-790RM, 1997 WL 662506, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 1997).
To demonstrate good cause, a party must show that despite its diligence, the time table could not
reasonably have been met. Smith, 1997 WL 662506, at *1.
Here, RAP4 has failed to show good cause for such a lengthy extension of time—more
than thirty days. RAP4’s counsel was present at the 30(b)(6) deposition and, thus, should be
able to articulate the substance of the testimony that would constitute a defense to the motion for
default judgment without citing to the exact page and line number. RAP4 has simply not shown
why the finalized deposition is so essential to its response that it cannot reasonably meet the time
table already set. See Smith, 1997 WL 662506, at *1. Accordingly, RAP4’s request for an

2

enlargement of time (Docket # 224), as framed in its motion, is DENIED.
Nonetheless, recognizing the significance of a response to a motion for default judgment,
and that the deadline for RAP4’s response is today, the Court GRANTS all Defendants in this
case to and including March 11, 2013, to file and serve a response to ATO’s Motion for Default
Judgment (Docket # 209). If Defendants wish to file a transcript of ATO’s 30(b)(6) deposition
under seal, the Court will grant them leave to do so.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 7th day of March, 2013.
S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

3