Home Design Services v. Alan V Gren Enterprises et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 65 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 64 MOTION to Compel APPROPRIATE DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM PLAINTIFF HOME DESIGN SERVICES, INC. Responses due by 4/23/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/16/13. (ss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

HOME DESIGN SERVICES,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

v.

Case No. 2:12-cv-00398-TS-DBP

ALAN V. GREN ENTERPRISES, et al.

District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

I.

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

INTRODUCTION

This copyright infringement matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). (Docket Nos. 37; 65.) On March 23, 2013, Defendants Alan v. Gren Enterprises
and Alan V. Gren (the “Gren Defendants”) filed a motion to compel discovery from Plaintiff.
(Dkt. No. 64.) Plaintiff’s response was due April 8, 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)
(computing time periods); DUCivR 7-1(b)(3)(B) (“A memorandum opposing any motion . . .
must be filed within fourteen [] days after service of the motion . . . .”) The Court now considers
Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file its response to the Gren Defendants’ motion to
compel. (Dkt. No. 65.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR MOTION FOR EXTENSION

“[B]efore the original time” to act expires, a party may move to extend the time to act, and
“the court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A).

Page 1 of 3

III.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff timely filed a motion to extend the time to file its response to the
Gren Defendants’ motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 65.) Plaintiff seeks until April 23, 2013 to file
its response. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff claims good cause justifies this extension. (Id.) The Gren
Defendants filed their motion on a Saturday, so Plaintiff only saw the motion the following
Monday. (Dkt. No. 69 at 3.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel had pre-existing deadlines in other
cases around the same time the response was due. (Dkt. Nos. 65 at 2; 69 at 4.) Additionally, the
Gren Defendants’ motion involves numerous “complex substantive issues.” (Dkt. No. 69 at 4.)
It is over one-hundred pages long. (Dkt. No. 65 at 2.) It concerns sixteen interrogatories, as well
as fifty-one document production requests that span forty years of business records. (Dkt. No. 69
at 5.)
The Gren Defendants oppose extending Plaintiff’s response deadline beyond April 15, 2013.
(Dkt. No. 68 at 4.) 1 In the past, they “have regularly and consistently granted Plaintiff’s many
requests for extensions . . . .” (Id. at 2.) However, they feel Plaintiff failed to show good cause
to “effectively double the standard response time” in this matter. (Id. at 4.) The Gren
Defendants emphasize, “it is critical to the[ir] [] preparation of their defenses that the Motion to
Compel be timely addressed and resolved.” (Id. at 3.)
IV.

ORDERS

The Court shares the Gren Defendants’ concerns about the Plaintiff waiting until “the very
eve of the pending deadline” to file this extension request. (Dkt. No. 68 at 4.) However, given
Plaintiff’s counsel’s pre-existing deadlines in other cases, as well as the length and complexity of
the Gren Defendants’ motion to compel, the Court finds good cause for Plaintiff’s request. As
1

Because Plaintiff filed the current motion on April 8, 2013, this Court ordered expedited
briefing to rule on the motion as close to April 15, 2013 as possible. (Dkt. No. 67.)
Page 2 of 3

such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for an extension to file its response to the Gren
Defendants’ motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 65.) Plaintiff must file its response on or before April
23, 2013.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 16th day of April, 2013.

By the Court:

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3