Cvent Inc v. RainFocus et al

Filing 309

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 291 Motion to Extend Fact Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 1/31/20. (dla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
CVENT, INC.,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY

v.
Case No. 2:17-cv-230 RJS DBP
RAINFOCUS, INC. et al.,
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
This matter is referred to the undersigned from Judge Shelby based upon 28 U.S.C §
636(b)(1)(A). (ECF No. 64.) Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Extend Fact
Discovery. (ECF No. 291.) Defendants seek an extension of the fact discovery cutoff to April 24,
2020. Plaintiff Cvent, Inc. (Cvent) objects, asserting that if any extension is warranted it should
only be 45 days or less, because of Defendants conduct. The court will grant Defendants
motion. 1
Cvent filed it Complaint on March 24, 2017. (ECF No. 2.) The Complaint alleges, among
other allegations, that Defendants misappropriated Cvent’s trade secrets. (ECF No. 2 at ¶¶ 84119.) The history of this case has involved numerous discovery disputes and a recently decided
order overruling an objection to one of these decisions regarding discovery. (ECF No. 308.) 2 In
support of the motion for an extension, Defendants point to a number of factors including: (1) the
then pending Objection regarding Cvent’s trade secrets; Judge Shelby recently entered an order
on January 23, 2020, addressing the Objection (ECF No. 308.); (2) alleged failures by Cvent to

1

Briefing has concluded on this matter and the court after reviewing the parties’ papers, will decide the matter
without oral argument. See DUCivR 7-1(f).

2

See, e.g., ECF No. 161, ECF No. 184, ECF No. 219 and ECF No. 263.

provide “necessary information about the developers of its copyrighted code and the portions of
its copyrighted code that are original to Cvent despite a Court order” (ECF No. 307 p. 4.); (3) the
difficulties with scheduling at least 20 more depositions; and (4) the need for Defendants to have
sufficient time to review Cvent’s source code after it has completed its review. In addition, the
court notes that also pending before the court is Cvent’s “fifth attempt” to get access to source
code and development documents. (ECF No. 295.)
Rule 16(b)(4) provides that a schedule “may be modified only for good cause and with
the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Demonstrating good cause under the rule
“requires the moving party to show that it has been diligent in attempting to meet the deadlines,
which means it must provide an adequate explanation for any delay.” Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.3d
1499, 1504 (10th Cir. 1994); see also Strope v. Collins, 315 F. App'x 57, 61 (10th Cir. 2009).
The record here demonstrates good cause to extend the schedule based upon the amount of
discovery, the efforts of both parties including Defendants, the time needed to resolve disputes
and the number of outstanding issues. Further, the Defendants’ Objection has been recently ruled
on, so there is increased confidence to proceed with certain discovery. Accordingly, the court
adopts Defendants proposed schedule.
1. Fact discovery cutoff is April 24, 2020
2. Plaintiff’s Expert Reports are due May 1, 2020
3. Defendants’ Expert Reports are due July 17, 2020
4. Expert Discovery Cutoff is Friday August 28, 2020
5. Dispositive Motion Deadline is September 18, 2020
6. If no dispositive motions are filed, the deadline for filing a request for a scheduling
conference for the purposes of setting a trial date is September 25, 2020

2

7. The Daubert motion deadline is September 30, 2020
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Extend Fact Discovery is GRANTED.

DATED this 31 January 2020.

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

3