Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Eclipse Group LLP v. Target Corp.

United States District Court, S.D. California

May 23, 2017

THE ECLIPSE GROUP LLP, Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION, et al, Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING INTERVENOR'S EX PARTE MOTION TO EXTEND CERTAIN DATES [ECF NO. 117]

          Hon. Barbara L. Major, Judge

         Currently before the Court is Intervenor's April 19, 2017 ex parte motion to extend certain deadlines [ECF No. 117-1 (“Mot.”)] and Defendants' opposition to the motion [ECF No. 118 (“Oppo.”)].

         Intervenor seeks to continue the April 24, 2017 deadline for expert reports to May 22, 2017, the May 9, 2017 deadline for contradictory or rebuttal evidence to June 5, 2017, the May 30, 2017 deadline for completing expert discovery to June 19, 2017, and the July 19, 2017 Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”) to September 13, 2017. Mot. at 2, 4. In support, Intervenor argues that he requires key information from Defendants “which is critical to the expert's analysis and valuation of damages, and which so far Defendants have refused to produce.” Id. at 2. Intervenor also argues that his expert report would be incomplete without the missing discovery and that there would be no prejudice to Defendants. Id. at 2-3. In further support, Intervenor states that he has been occupied for the last two weeks preparing summary judgment briefing in a copyright case in Los Angeles and that supplemental expert reports do not make sense. Id. at 2-3. With respect to the MSC, Intervenor states that he is scheduled to begin a jury trial on July 11, 2017 which will conflict with the MSC and that he has a vacation planned for August 2017. Id. at 3-4.

         On April 21, 2017, Defendants filed an opposition to Intervenor's motion.[1] Oppo. Defendants contend that Intervenor has already filed a motion seeking this relief that was previously denied by the Court and that the instant motion “does not substantially address the shortcomings of his prior ex parte application.” Id. at 2. Defendants do not believe that the motion should be granted based upon Intervenor's pending motion to compel [see ECF No. 83] because Intervenor “is unlikely to obtain any relief on his motion[s].” Id. at 3. Defendants note that Intervenor has failed to specifically state which documents or information are relevant to his expert reports or to disclose the actual document requests upon which he bases his request for a continuance. Id. Defendants also contend that Intervenor has failed to explain how the information he seeks is necessary for his expert reports or why supplemental reports would “make no sense.” Id. at 6-7. Defendants further contend that Intervenor should have included a declaration from his expert with his request for relief and that Intervenor himself is to blame for any delays in the rulings on his motions to compel for failing to comply with the Court's orders. Id. at 7. Finally, Defendants argue that Intervenor's current work load in other matters does not support a continuation of the expert deadlines. Id. Defendants do not oppose Intervenor's request to continue the Mandatory Settlement Conference, but note that it may be premature to continue the conference as Intervenor's case “may be decided on summary judgment or settle before trial.” Id. at 8.

         Intervenor's motion to continue the deadlines for expert reports, contradictory or rebuttal evidence, completing expert discovery, and the MSC is GRANTED. The Court notes that both Intervenor and Defendants have filed lengthy discovery motions and are vigorously opposing each other's motions. See ECF Nos. 83, 88, 91, 97-98, 100-101, 103, 105, 108-126. Given the inability of the parties to conduct discovery in a reasonable manner, the Court finds it necessary to continue the remaining dates as follows:

Current Deadline

New Deadline

Expert Reports

April 24, 2017

July 28, 2017

Supplemental Disclosures

May 9, 2017

August 18, 2017

Expert Discovery

May 30, 2017

September 22, 2017

Mandatory Settlement Conference (“MSC”)

July 19, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

December 4, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

MSC Briefs

July 10, 2017

November 27, 2017

Pretrial Motion Filing

June 20, 2017

October 20, 2017

Pretrial Disclosure

September 28, 2017

January 18, 2018

Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law

September 28, 2017

January 18, 2018

L.R. 16.1(f)(4) Meeting

October 5, 2017

January 25, 2018

Exchange Proposed Pretrial Order

October 12, 2017

February 1, 2018

Lodge Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order

October 19, 2017

February 8, 2018

Final Pretrial Conference

October 26, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

February 15, 2018 at 1:30 p.m.

         All guidelines and requirements remain as previously set. See ECF No. 68.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Intervenor states that Plaintiff “agreed to the relief sought.” Mot. at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.