Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01468-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NIKE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, )

) 2:05-cv-01468-GEB-JFM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

NIKEPAL INTERNATIONAL INC., a ) 

California corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On February 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Modify the

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order (“Motion to Modify”), which seeks

to extend the deadline for expert witness disclosure under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). On February 3, 2006, Plaintiff

filed an ex parte application (“Application”), which seeks to

accelerate the hearing date on the Motion to Modify. The Application

represents Plaintiff asked Defendant to stipulate to the accelerated

hearing date, but Defendant refused. 

Upon review, the Court has decided to modify the Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order in a manner that moots both the

Application and the Motion to Modify. Therefore, both are denied, and

the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order is modified as follows: 

Case 2:05-cv-01468-GEB -JFM Document 37 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This modification has been made in part because Plaintiff 1

requested a later expert disclosure date than was prescribed in the

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order. Unfortunately, shortening the

length of time between the Final Pretrial Conference and the trial date

will interfere with the assignment of a settlement judge because there

will be less time for a judge to absorb a settlement conference on his

or her docket. As a result, the parties will not be assigned a

settlement judge should they ultimately conclude that one would be

beneficial. 

2

(1) Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report

requirements on or before May 8, 2006, and any rebuttal expert

disclosure authorized under the Rule on or before June 19, 2006. 

(2) All discovery shall be completed by November 8, 2006. 

(3) The last hearing date for motions shall be January 8,

2007, at 9:00 a.m. 

(4) The Final Pretrial Conference is set for March 5, 2007,

at 1:30 p.m.1

Trial will commence on April 17, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 9, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01468-GEB -JFM Document 37 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 2