Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00339/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00339-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

 In the meantime, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 6). The District Court declined to dismiss the 1

case, but instead quashed a summons that had been served improperly upon defense counsel. (Doc. 15). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINTON Q. QUISINBERRY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CHRIS LEAVELLE dba CHRISCO BIT, )

JIM PATTERSON, BURNETT, LARA, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00339 AWI TAG

ORDER REQUIRING JOINT

SCHEDULING REPORT and

ORDER VACATING AND

RESCHEDULING SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE

Background

On March 27, 2006, Plaintiff Quinton Q. Quisinberry filed his complaint against Defendants

Cris Leavelle dba Chrisco Bit, Jim Patterson, et al. (Doc. 1). An initial scheduling conference was

set for June 28, 2006 (Doc. 3), reset to July 5, 2006 (Doc. 5), and continued to August 4, 2006 by

stipulation and order. (Doc. 12).

On June 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed a “Joint Scheduling Conference Statement” signed only by

Plaintiff and without benefit of any input from Defendants. (Doc. 11). Likewise, on July 28, 2006,

Defendants filed their own “Joint Scheduling Report” setting forth their own legal theories, defenses

and contested facts, but without benefit of any input from Plaintiffs. (Doc. 20).

1

Neither the “Joint Scheduling Conference Statement” submitted by Plaintiff nor the “Joint

Scheduling Report” submitted by Defendants is “joint” in any sense of the word. Both pleadings

violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), which states:

Case 1:06-cv-00339-AWI-TAG Document 22 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Conference of Parties; Planning for Discovery.

 . . . [T]he parties must, as soon as practicable and in any event at least 21

days before a scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due

uner rule 16(b), confer to consider the nature and basis of their claims and

defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the

case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), and

to develop a proposed discovery plan . . . . The attorneys of record and

all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly

responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith

to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court

within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) (bold italics added).

Given the parties’ failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in this case,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer as contemplated by Rule 26(f) and

shall file by August 11, 2006, an Amended Joint Scheduling Report setting forth - in one document

- the discovery plan and additional information required by Rule 26(f). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference currently set for August 4,

2006, at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED and RESCHEDULED to August 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. before

United States Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner, in chambers at 1200 Truxtun Avenue, Suite

120, Bakersfield, California 93301. The parties may appear by telephone at the Scheduling

Conference, provided (1) they submit an electronic request to do so, no later than Friday, August 11,

2006; and (2) in the event that more than one party shall request to appear by telephone, the

requesting parties shall make mutually acceptable advance arrangements with opposing counsel and 

any unrepresented parties regarding the initiation of a single telephone call to Judge Goldner’s 

chambers at the time of the Scheduling Conference (with all telephonically-appearing parties on the

call ). Electronic requests must be submitted to tagorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The telephone

number of Judge Goldner’s chambers is 661-326-6620. 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT IN THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

Case 1:06-cv-00339-AWI-TAG Document 22 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00339-AWI-TAG Document 22 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 3