Dutcher v. Bold Films et al
Filing
103
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER and AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 93 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. (Discovery due by 4/17/2017. Motions due by 5/30/2017. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2017 at 02:30 PM in Rm 8.300 before Judge Dee Benson. 5 Day Jury Trial set for 10/30/2017 at 08:30 AM in Rm 8.300 before Judge Dee Benson) Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 11/28/2016. (blh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
RICHARD DUTCHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOLD FILMS LP; BOLD FILMS
PRODUCTIONS, LCC; OPEN ROAD
FILMS, LLC; NBCUNIVERSAL
MEDICAL, LLC; and UNIVERSAL
STUDIOS HOME ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
and
SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING
ORDER
Case No. 2:15-cv-110
District Judge Dee Benson
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
Defendants.
District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is Richard Dutcher’s (“Plaintiff”)
motion to amend the Amended Scheduling Order.2 The court has carefully reviewed the written
memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the
United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is
not necessary and will determine the motion on the basis of the written memoranda. See
DUCivR 7-1(f).
1
See docket no. 80.
2
See docket no. 93.
On February 29, 2016, the court issued a Scheduling Order that set the end of fact
discovery for August 29, 2016.3 The court then issued an Amended Scheduling Order on June
20, 2016, that extended fact discovery until November 15, 2016.4 Plaintiff has now filed the
instant motion to amend the Amended Scheduling Order, requesting that this court extend the
pretrial scheduling deadlines six months and increase the number of depositions accorded to each
side from ten depositions to thirty depositions. While Bold Films LP, et al. (collectively,
“Defendants”) oppose Plaintiff’s motion in its entirety, they did offer Plaintiff an additional eight
depositions and an extension of the deadlines to accommodate those depositions.
Under Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order may
only be modified for “good cause” and “with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The
court considers the following factors in determining whether good cause exists to extend or
reopen discovery:
1) whether trial is imminent, 2) whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the nonmoving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether the moving party was diligent in obtaining
discovery within the guidelines established by the court, 5) the foreseeability of the need
for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for discovery by the district court,
and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant evidence.
Smith v. United States, 834 F.2d 166, 170 (10th Cir. 1987). The court concludes that these
factors weigh in favor of amending the scheduling order. Furthermore, while Defendants have
opposed the request, they have acquiesced in allowing a small extension as well as some
additional depositions.
3
See docket no. 85.
4
See docket no. 92.
2
In addition, Rule 26(b)(1) provides the following six factors for determining the relative
scope of discovery allowed in each action: “the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Because this lawsuit involves allegations of copyright infringement, the amount in controversy
has the potential to be significant and discovery is essential to determine whether or not
Defendants had access to Plaintiff’s film before creating and producing their film. Additionally,
Plaintiff has identified six potential third-party witnesses to depose through recently obtained
discovery. Plaintiff does not, however, provide a sufficient rationale for why twenty additional
depositions are required or proportional to the scope of discovery in this action.
Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that good cause exists to GRANT Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend the Amended Scheduling Order. That said, the court will limit the extension
based on the factors discussed above. Specifically, the pretrial scheduling deadlines will be
extended two months, rather than the originally six months requested by Plaintiff. Additionally,
the amount of depositions accorded to each side will be increased to eighteen (18) depositions,
which reflect the amount originally offered by Defendants and allows for depositions of all thirdparty witnesses identified in Plaintiff’s motion. Should additional depositions be necessary,
Plaintiff may file an appropriate motion that details the reason further discovery is necessary.
The new scheduling order deadlines are as follows:
3
Event
Date
Fact discovery deadline
1/16/2017
Expert reports deadline
2/6/2017
Counter reports deadline
3/15/2017
Expert discovery deadline
4/17/2017
Deadline for filing dispositive motions and/or motions to exclude expert
testimony
5/30/2017
Rule 26(a)(3) Pretrial disclosures:
Plaintiff
Defendant
8/28/2017
9/11/2017
Special attorney conference and settlement conference on or before
9/25/2017
Final pretrial conference
10/16/2017 at
2:30 p.m.
Jury trial (5 days)
10/30/2017 at
8:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 28th day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?