Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-05672/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-05672-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:504 Copyright 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHEL KECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALIBABA.COM HONG KONG LTD., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05672-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO AMEND CASE

MANAGEMENT ORDER

[Re: ECF 280]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Case Management Order (“Motion”). 

Motion, ECF 280. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion in part. Opp’n, ECF 288. No reply was 

filed. Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court (1) extend the deadline to amend pleadings and add 

parties by six months; and (2) extend class certification deadlines by six months. See Motion at 1. 

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline to amend pleadings and add parties, 

but do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to extend class certification deadlines. See Opp’n at 1. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court takes this matter under submission without oral 

argument. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 

IN PART. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to amend a scheduling order must show “good cause” for such relief. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 

consent.”). A “good cause determination focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party.” 

Yeager v. Yeager, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2009) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth 

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Courts may take into account any resulting 

prejudice to the opposing party, but “the focus of the [Rule 16(b)] inquiry is upon the moving 

Case 5:17-cv-05672-BLF Document 290 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . [i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should 

end.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) aff’d 

sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s request to extend deadline to amend pleadings and add parties

The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline to amend pleadings 

and add parties. See ECF 194. In that order, the Court modified the deadline from May 14, 2018, 

to October 29, 2018. Id. (granting Plaintiff’s request to set deadline 60 days after the Court rules 

on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which the Court did so on August 30, 2018, see ECF 270).

Plaintiff argues there is good cause to further extend the deadline for amending the 

pleadings and adding parties due to “[t]he current state of discovery.” See Motion at 5. 

Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that she “does not yet have a meaningful production of documents 

from Alibaba HK, much less from TCHL and Zhejiang Taobao who are just now subject to full 

discovery for the first time.” Id. Defendants counter that Plaintiff has not shown “good cause” to 

extend the deadline because Plaintiff has already amended her pleadings and added parties based 

on the Court’s prior extension of the deadline and “after having received meaningful discovery 

regarding which entities operate the various platforms at issue and handle notice and takedown.” 

See Opp’n at 3–4. The Court agrees with Defendants. 

First of all, following the Court’s prior extension of the deadline to amend pleadings and 

add parties, Plaintiff has taken discovery aimed at identifying or clarifying which entities are 

responsible for various e-commerce platforms central to Plaintiff’s case. See, e.g., Defendant 

TCHL’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Second Interrogatories, Ex. B to Friedmann 

Decl., ECF 288-2 (dated June 26, 2018). Indeed, Plaintiff requested leave of the Court to file her 

First Amended Complaint ahead of the deadline for amending pleadings and adding parties. ECF 

278. The Court granted leave, see ECF 285, and Plaintiff subsequently filed her First Amended 

Complaint on October 8, 2018, amending the pleadings and adding parties, three weeks in advance 

of the deadline to do so, see First Amended Complaint, ECF 286. Thus, it does not appear that 

Plaintiff has fully utilized the time period available to her under the Court’s prior extension of the 

Case 5:17-cv-05672-BLF Document 290 Filed 10/23/18 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

deadline to amend the pleadings and add parties. See Yeager, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2.

Second of all, Plaintiff has failed to identify in non-conclusory fashion why, despite 

Plaintiff’s diligence, Plaintiff does not already have access to sufficient discovery for amending 

the pleadings or adding parties. Plaintiff merely argues that “[t]he current state of discovery [] 

justifies a modification of the deadline to amend pleadings,” without specifying how or why the 

current state of discovery is insufficient for the particular purpose of amending the pleadings or 

adding parties. See Motion at 5. For example, as noted by Defendants, Plaintiff does not indicate 

the nature or category of outstanding discovery that may lead to identification of additional claims 

or defendants. See Opp’n at 4. Thus, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has articulated 

adequate “reasons for seeking modification” under Rule 16(b). In re W. States, 715 F.3d at 737.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to further extend the deadline to amend pleadings and add 

parties is DENIED. 

B. Plaintiff’s request to extend class certification deadlines

At present, the last day for class certification hearing is October 3, 2019. See ECF 180. 

Plaintiff requests to extend the last day for class certification hearing (and associated deadlines) by 

approximately six months to “allow Plaintiff adequate time to review [] documents . . . [and] 

depose [] witnesses,” in light of Defendants’ indication that discovery relevant to class issues will 

not be complete until March 2019. See Motion at 1; Opp’n at 2. Defendants concur, stating that 

“Plaintiff’s request to push out the class certification deadlines by six months is well warranted,” 

due to the timing and scope of discovery. Opp’n at 3. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 

shown “good cause” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) to modify the class certification deadlines. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to extend class certification deadlines by six months is 

GRANTED. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion at ECF 280 is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. The following dates or deadlines as depicted in the table below shall apply:

Case 5:17-cv-05672-BLF Document 290 Filed 10/23/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

EVENT EXISTING DATE 

OR DEADLINE1

UPDATED DATE 

OR DEADLINE

Last day to amend pleadings and add parties Oct. 29, 2018 REQUEST TO 

CHANGE DENIED

Plaintiff’s last day to serve class certification 

expert reports

Mar. 15, 2019 Sept. 16, 2019

Defendants’ last day to serve class certification 

expert reports

Apr. 26, 2019 Oct. 25, 2019

Plaintiff’s last day to serve reply class certification 

reports

May 10, 2019 Nov. 12, 2019

Class certification expert discovery cutoff May 31, 2019 Dec. 2, 2019

Last day to file class certification motions June 21, 2019 Dec. 20, 2019

Last day to hear class certification motion Oct. 3, 2019 Apr. 2, 2020

Fact discovery cutoff June 11, 2020 NO CHANGE

REQUESTED

Plaintiff’s last day to serve expert reports July 16, 2020 NO CHANGE 

REQUESTED

Defendants’ last day to serve expert reports Sept. 10, 2020 NO CHANGE 

REQUESTED

Plaintiff’s last day to serve reply expert reports Oct. 8, 2020 NO CHANGE 

REQUESTED

Expert discovery cutoff Nov. 12, 2020 NO CHANGE 

REQUESTED

Last day to file dispositive motions Jan. 18, 2021 NO CHANGE 

REQUESTED

Last day to hear dispositive motions May 27, 2021 NO CHANGE 

REQUESTED

Last day to file motions in limine and other 

motions

July 2, 2021 NO CHANGE 

REQUESTED

Final pretrial conference Sept. 2, 2021 NO CHANGE 

REQUESTED

Trial Oct. 4, 2021 NO CHANGE 

REQUESTED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2018 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1 Prior deadlines set by the Court complied from the Court’s orders at ECF 180 and ECF 183, 

respectively. 

Case 5:17-cv-05672-BLF Document 290 Filed 10/23/18 Page 4 of 4