United States District Court, S.D. California
STEVEN M. GARDNER, an individual, Plaintiff,
CAFEPRESS INC., a Delaware Corporation, et al., Defendants.
(1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND
TO SET NEW SCHEDULING DATES; [No. 3:13-cv-1108-GPC-JLB, ECF No.100] [No. 3:14-cv-0792-GPC-JLB, ECF No. 7]
(2) VACATING HEARING DATE
GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Steven M. Gardner's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Consolidate and to Set New Scheduling Dates. (ECF No. 100.) Defendants CafePress Inc. ("CafePress") and TellApart, Inc. ("TellApart") (collectively, "Defendants") oppose. (ECF No. 126.) Plaintiff has replied to Defendants' opposition. (ECF No.131.)
The parties have fully briefed the motion. (ECF Nos. 100, 126, 131.) The Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate.
On May 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement by CafePress and CafePress users ( Gardner v. CafePress, Inc. (" Gardner I "), No. 3:13-cv-1108-GPC-JLB). (ECF No. 1.) On October 14, 2014, pursuant to this Court's order granting Plaintiff's motion to amend, (ECF No.108), Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") against CafePress and CafePress users, adding a new claim and a new defendant. (ECF No. 112.)
On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement by CafePress and a different CafePress user. ( Gardner v. CafePress Inc. (" Gardner II "), No. 3:14-cv-0792-GPC-JLB, ECF No. 1.) On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in Gardner II adding TellApart as a defendant. (No. 3:14-cv-0792-GPC-JLB, ECF No. 6.)
On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate. (ECF No. 100.) On November 7, 2014, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 126.) On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants' opposition. (ECF No. 131.) Plaintiff seeks to consolidate Gardner I and Gardner II. (ECF No. 100.)
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) grants the Court broad discretion to consolidate separate actions. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). Under Rule 42(a), the Court may consolidate actions that involve common questions of law or fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). The Court should also consider weigh any time and effort saved by consolidation against any "inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause." Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir.1984) (citations omitted).
The parties do not dispute that Gardner I and Gardner II share common questions of law and fact. ( See ECF No. 100-1, at 4; ECF No. 126, at 5.) However, Defendants argue three reasons why the cases should not be consolidated: (1) the difference in procedural posture between the two cases, (2) the increased inconvenience and cost resulting from consolidation, and (3) consolidation would prejudice Defendants. (ECF No. 126, at 5-6.)
First, the parties dispute whether consolidation would require altering the current discovery deadlines. ( Compare ECF No. 131, at 1-2 with ECF No. 126, at 5.) Citing Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758 (5th Cir. 1989), Defendants argue that discovery in Gardner I has already closed and consolidation would cause undue delay by reopening discovery in Gardner I. (ECF No. 126, at 5.) Plaintiff argues that, due to the recent addition of a new claim and new defendant, discovery already needs to extended, regardless of whether the cases are consolidated. (ECF No. 131, at 1-2.) Second, Defendants argue that there will be additional expenses of another motion for summary judgment and the redeposing of an expert witness. (ECF No. 126, at 6.) Third, Defendants argue that consolidation would prejudice CafePress and TellApart because Plaintiff's theories of liability differ for each defendant. ( Id. )
While consolidation undoubtedly would cause some delay and increased expenses in Gardner I, the Court must weigh that against any time and effort saved by consolidation. Huene, 743 F.2d at 704. In this case, consolidation would save considerable time and effort because these two cases relate to similar alleged actions of CafePress users and similar alleged responses to those actions by CafePress and TellApart. Consolidation would avoid the unnecessary expense of two separate trials. Moreover, any additional extension of discovery would be quite limited as the parties have already engaged in extensive ...