Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-00219/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-00219-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Although the stipulation refers to the existing deadline as December 25, 2009, the

deadline was extended, at the parties’ request, to January 31, 2010. (See Order, filed

December 9, 2009.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KINGVISION PAY-PER-VIEW, LTD.,

Plaintiff

 v.

HECTOR ANTONIO ORELLANA, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-09-0219 MMC

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

REFERRING IN PART TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE LAPORTE STIPULATION TO

CONTINUE SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE AND VARIOUS

DEADLINES

Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference and

Various Deadlines, filed February 8, 2010. Having read and considered the stipulation, the

Court rules as follows:

1. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing the settlement conference

from February 11, 2010 to March 4, 2010, the stipulation is hereby REFERRED to

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.

2. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing the non-expert discovery

deadline from January 31, 20101

 to April 1, 2010, the stipulation is hereby DENIED for the

Case 3:09-cv-00219-MMC Document 29 Filed 02/10/10 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

2

The sole reason offered by the parties in support of the request is that the parties

engaged in settlement discussions during the first week of February 2010. The parties fail

to explain why discussions occurring after the deadline to complete non-expert discovery

serve to excuse any prior failure to complete non-expert discovery.

2

reason that the parties have failed to show good cause exists for such an extension.2

3. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing the deadlines to designate

experts, to complete expert discovery, and to file dispositive motions, the stipulation is

hereby DENIED, for the reason that the parties fail to address the effect of those proposed

extensions on the remaining pretrial dates, specifically, the May 25, 2010 Pretrial

Conference and the June 7, 2010 trial date. For example, if the Court were to extend the

deadline to file dispositive motions to May 10, 2010, as the parties request, the hearing on

any such motions would be conducted, under the Local Rules of this District, on June 18,

2010, which date is after the first date of the trial.

4. To the extent the parties seek an order continuing the Status Conference from

March 5, 2010 to May 7, 2010, a date only eighteen days before the Pretrial Conference,

the stipulation is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00219-MMC Document 29 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2