The Cato Corporation v. L.A. Printex Industries, Inc.

Filing 122

ORDER granting 121 Motion to Continue Docket Call/Trial( Jury Trial set for 12/3/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr.); granting 121 Motion to extend Discovery, Scheduling deadlines extended as follows: Discovery deadline: 10/15/12; Motion filing deadline: 11/1/12.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 8/30/12. (bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10cv462
[consolidated with 3:10cv543]
THE CATO CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
L.A. PRINTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
L.A. PRINTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
THE CATO CORP., a Delaware corporation;
VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC., a
California Corporation; LI & FUNG LTD.,
a Hong Kong Limited Company; LF USA,
INC., a New York Corporation; and
DOES 3 through 10,
Defendants.
_____________________________________

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on L.A. Printex’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order
to Extend Discovery and Trial-Related Dates (#121). L.A. Printex requests that the court vacate the
current Scheduling Order and issue an Order that the parties conduct a supplemental Initial
Attorneys’ Conference and submit a revised proposed Pretrial Order, based upon this court’s prior
Order in which L.A. Printex was granted leave to amend its First Amended Complaint to add crossdefendant LF USA as a party to the case (#111). In that Order, the court put the parties “on notice
that L.A. Printex’s delay in filing the present motion may not be without consequence and may be
considered in awarding costs and determining whether additional time for discovery is necessary

-1-

once LF USA is formally added to this action.” Id., pp. 5-6.
Following the court’s Order, cross-defendant LF USA filed a responsive Answer on July 20
(#114). L.A. Printex states that its counsel contacted defendants on August 8 and unsuccessfully
requested that the parties stipulate to a continuance of the current trial dates. Mot. to Modify
Scheduling Order, p. 2. The court notes that L.A. Printex waited over 14 days to file its Motion after
contacting defendants to request an extension, and filed said Motion just five weeks prior to the trial
date. In order for the parties to conduct meaningful discovery, however, the court finds that good
cause exists to vacate the current Scheduling Order and continue the trial date to the next available
civil docket term. The court again encourages the parties to consider an amicable resolution of this
matter.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that L.A. Printex’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Order
to Extend Discovery and Trial-Related Dates (#121) is GRANTED and the following deadlines are
enlarged:
(1)

discovery, October 15, 2012;

(2)

motions, November 1, 2012; and

(3)

trial, first term beginning on or after December 3, 2012.

Signed: August 30, 2012

-2-