The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING [Dkt. No. 212]
In this copyright infringement action, Defendant filed a motion seeking summary judgment on, among other things, Plaintiff's claim for indirect profits, in conjunction with related motions in limine regarding Plaintiff's experts. (Dkt. Nos. 123, 125, 127.) Prior to the filing of the motions, the court granted Plaintiff's ex parte application to extend the discovery cutoff. (Dkt. No.
69). Plaintiff also sought additional time to respond to Defendant's motions. (Dkt. No. 124.) Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the court allowed Plaintiff approximately three additional weeks to file oppositions. (Dkt. No. 146.) Plaintiff timely filed an opposition to Defendant's summary judgment motion, including an "Errata Supplemental Report" of David B. Connelly as an exhibit in support of Plaintiff's opposition. (Dkt. No. 180.)
The matter was fully briefed, argued, and submitted to the court. (Dkt. No. 192.) The court issued an order on Defendant's motions on October 9, 2012. (Dkt. No. 196). The court's order addressed certain evidentiary objections raised by Defendant, without ruling on all such objections.
On November 5, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for clarification of the court's order and the court's position on Defendant's evidentiary objections. Specifically, Defendant asked the court to address Defendant's objection to the Supplemental Connelly Report, raised in response to Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Motion for Clarification was fully briefed. On Friday, November 30th, the last business day before the hearing on the motion, Plaintiff attempted to file a request for substitution of counsel. (Dkt. No. 202.) That request was improperly filed, and was stricken. (Dkt. No. 203.)
Both Plaintiff's original counsel and new counsel attended the motion hearing on Monday, December 3, 2012. Though Plaintiff had not yet substituted counsel, the court allowed both Plaintiff's new counsel and former counsel an unlimited opportunity to be heard. Both former counsel and new counsel presented argument to the court. New counsel substituted in the next day. (Dkt. Nos. 210, 211.)
Plaintiff, through his new counsel, now requests an additional four weeks in which to file an additional brief responding to Defendant's clarification motion and the arguments raised at the hearing. These issues have been briefed and argued at length, first in the context of the underlying Motion for Summary Judgment and more recently on Defendant's Motion for Clarification. While the court appreciates the difficulties faced by new counsel substituted in on short notice, such last-minute substitution does not constitute sufficient good cause for supplemental briefing, which the court finds unnecessary in any event. Plaintiff's ex parte application for leave to file a supplemental brief is, therefore, DENIED.*fn1