United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY MOTIONS (DOCS. 12,
K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
December 11, 2019, twelve days after the non-expert discovery
deadline passed, Defendant filed motions seeking to compel
Plaintiff's responses to: (1) Special Interrogatories,
(2) Requests for Production, and (3) Requests for Admission.
(Docs. 12, 13, 14.) Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.
reviewed the motions and supporting documents, and in view of
Plaintiff's failure to oppose, the motions are deemed
suitable for decision without oral argument, and the Court
hereby vacates the hearing set for January 8, 2020. For the
reasons set forth below, the motions are denied without
25, 2018, Plaintiff filed this trademark infringement case
against Defendant. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff and Defendant are
former business partners and Plaintiff alleges Defendant
wrongfully used information owned by Plaintiff to operate a
new business after the partnership ended. (See Id.
¶ 1, 9, 13.) The complaint alleges claims for
cybersquatting under the Lanham Act, misappropriation of
trade secrets, and conversion. (See generally id.)
October 23, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order,
setting the non-expert discovery deadline for November 29,
2019, the expert disclosures deadline for December 6, 2019,
the rebuttal expert disclosures deadline for December 16,
2019, the expert discovery deadline for January 10, 2020, a
settlement conference for January 23, 2020 before Magistrate
Judge Erica P. Grosjean, the dispositive motions filing
deadline for January 31, 2020, and a trial date of July 7,
2020. (Doc. 10.)
September 23, 2019, approximately eleven months after
discovery commenced, Defendant served his first set of
Special Interrogatories, first set of Requests for
Production, and first set of Requests for Admission.
(See Doc. 12 at 5; Doc. 13 at 5; Doc. 14 at 5.) On
October 31, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel emailed
Defendant's counsel requesting a three-week extension to
respond to the discovery requests. (Doc. 12 at 5-6.)
Defendant's counsel was “unaware” of
Plaintiff's counsel's email. (See Id. at 6.)
Defendant's counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel a letter
on November 12, 2019, demanding responses by no later than
November 15, 2019. (Id.)
November 15, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel requested another
extension to respond by no later than November 21, 2019.
(Id.) On November 18, 2019, Defendant's counsel
agreed to the November 21, 2019 extension, and advised
Plaintiff's counsel that if no responses were served by
November 21, 2019, Defendant would file a motion to compel.
(Id.) On December 4, 2019, Defendant's counsel
sent a letter to Plaintiff's counsel via email, fax, and
regular mail, “in an attempt to meet and confer
regarding discovery and stated her intent to seek resolution
through an informal discovery process with Judge
Oberto.” (Id.) Defendant's counsel also
“left messages with [Plaintiff's counsel's]
office.” (Id.) Plaintiff's counsel did not
respond to any of Defendant's counsel's attempts to
meet and confer. (Id.) Defendant then filed these
motions to compel on December 11, 2019. (Docs. 12, 13, 14.)
The Motions to Compel Are Denied Without Prejudice.
Defendant's Motions to Compel are Untimely.
courts have broad authority in managing discovery. See,
e.g., Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.
2002). “Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
place no time limit on the outside date for the filing of a
motion to compel discovery, motions to compel filed after the
close of discovery generally are deemed untimely.”
Thomason v. City of Fowler, No.
1:13-CV-00336-AWI-BAM, 2014 WL 4436385, at *4 (E.D. Cal.
Sept. 9, 2014) (citing cases). However, ...