Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-mc-00093/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-mc-00093-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAPITOL COMMISSION INC.

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-MC-00093 GEB CKD

vs.

CAPITOL MINISTRIES ORDER

Defendant.

 /

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to compel the production of

documents from non-party David Duran. Dkt. 1. The parties stipulated to a continuation of the

hearing on that motion on December 5, 2012 and set the matter for hearing before the

undersigned on January 9, 2013. Dkt. 5. 

However, as the parties acknowledge in their joint statement (dkt. 8), the deadline

for all discovery in this matter was December 31, 2012. See Eastern District of North Carolina

Civil Docket Case No. 5:11-cv-00214 (“Case No. 5:11-cv-00214”), Dkt. 64. The district judge’s

August 7, 2012 amended scheduling order provides that “all discovery shall be commenced in

time to be completed by 31 December 2012.” Case No. 5:11-cv-00214, Dkt. 64. Pending on that

court’s docket is a joint motion to modify the scheduling order and extend the discovery deadline

by 90 days. Case No. 5:11-cv-00214, Dkt. 78. Unless that deadline is extended by the district

1

Case 2:12-mc-00093-GEB-CKD Document 12 Filed 01/07/13 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

judge, however, the undersigned is bound by the August 7, 2012 amended scheduling order. 

Therefore, defendant’s motion is untimely under the current discovery deadline. 

Accordingly, the instant motion should be denied without prejudice, subject to a renewal of the

motion upon the district judge’s extension of the discovery deadline. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The January 9, 2013 hearing on the defendant’s motion is vacated; and

2. The defendant’s motion to compel the production of documents (dkt. 1) is

denied without prejudice. 

Dated: January 7, 2013

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ckd9

capcomm93 DiscHr;g.vac

2

Case 2:12-mc-00093-GEB-CKD Document 12 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2