signs.com et al v. SA International

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 58 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Defendant SA International must serve its discovery responses on Plaintiffs by September 30, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 09/25/2013. (asp)

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

SIGNS.COM,
FERRARI COLOR,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case No. 2:13-cv-00036-RJS-DBP

v.

District Judge Robert J. Shelby

SA INTERNATIONAL,

Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Defendant.

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket Nos. 40; 58.)
On September 16, 2013, Defendant SA International moved for an enlargement of time to
respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Dkt. No. 58.) For the reasons below, the Court
GRANTS the motion.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The parties’ fact discovery deadline falls on January 10, 2014. (Dkt. No. 57.) Pursuant
thereto, on July 3, 2013, Plaintiffs served interrogatories and document production requests on
Defendant. (Dkt. No. 60-1, Exs. A-B.) Defendant’s original response deadline fell on August 2,
2013. (Dkt. No. 60 at 1.) Plaintiffs granted Defendant extensions to respond by August 30,
2013. (Dkt. No. 60-1, Ex. C.)

Page 1 of 3

Thereafter, the parties exchanged emails about further extensions. (Dkt. No. 60-1, Ex. D.)
Plaintiffs deny granting Defendant any further extensions. (Dkt. No. 60 at 3.) However,
Defendant interprets the parties’ emails as granting Defendant another extension until September
16, 2013. (Dkt. No. 58 at 2.) On that date, Defendant filed the present motion to again extend
the deadline.
III.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT LAW

In general, a party must respond to interrogatories and document production requests within
thirty days after service of the requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2)(A). However, a
longer time may be stipulated to by the parties, or ordered by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29.
IV.

ANALYSIS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION

Defendant moves for an enlargement of time to serve its discovery responses on September
30, 2013. (Dkt. No. 58 at 2.) Due to surgery complications, and unexpected family matters,
Defendant’s counsel could not prepare the discovery responses in the week leading up to the
September 16, 2013 deadline. (Id.)
Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s motion. (Dkt. No. 60.) Plaintiffs claim Defendant’s discovery
responses are already overdue where Defendant should have served them on August 30, 2013.
(Id. at 3.) As such, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant “waived any objections to the discovery
requests and must produce” its responses. (Id.)
The Court recognizes Plaintiffs’ frustrations with Defendant’s repeated extension requests.
However, the fact discovery deadline in this matter is more than three months away. Under such
circumstances, the Court finds Plaintiffs will suffer little prejudice if the Court allows Defendant
a brief extension to provide its discovery responses.

Page 2 of 3

V.

ORDERS

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant SA International’s motion for
enlargement of time. (Dkt. No. 58.) Defendant SA International must serve its discovery
responses on Plaintiffs by September 30, 2013. 1
Dated this 25th day of September, 2013.

By the Court:

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Given the extensions granted to it by both Plaintiffs, and the Court, the Court advises
Defendant it will not look favorably upon any further extension requests regarding this particular
discovery.
Page 3 of 3