Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02073-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNERGY TECH & DESIGN INC. d/b/a

ROAD ARMOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JIM TERRY, SANDY TERRY, JIM

MEEKINS, DIXIE MEEKINS, JD

DISTRIBUTING, and ROAD ARMOR USA,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02073 JSW

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING

REQUEST TO MODIFY BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

In an order dated January 29, 2007, the Court set a briefing schedule on the pending

matters. The order indicated that if the parties wished to modify this schedule, they could

submit for the Court’s consideration a stipulation and proposed order demonstrating good cause

for any modification requested. On February 6, 2007, the Court received a stipulated request to

extend the briefing schedule “to permit adequate time for the Parties’ oppositions and replies.” 

(Stipulation at 2.) On February 7, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the stipulation

because it did not find the request demonstrated good cause, and further, considering the nature

of the pending motions, the Court did not find an extension of time was warranted. 

On the evening of February 8, 2007, this Court again received a request from Plaintiffs

to extend the deadline to oppose the motion to disqualify counsel, which had been due on

February 9, 2007, based on ongoing efforts related to their securing of an expert. Because the

Court found that Plaintiffs, although severely late, had demonstrated good cause, the Court

granted a brief extension of time. 

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 109 Filed 02/16/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Now again on the end of the day on February 15, 2007, the day before Defendants’

oppositions to the motions to amend and for sanctions are due, Defendants request a four-week

extension of time to file their oppositions. Because the Court is entirely unclear as to why the

ongoing discovery of new materials bears on the issue of Plaintiff’s motion to amend, the Court

DENIES Defendants’ request to extend the deadline for their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to

amend for lack of good cause shown. The deadline remains February 16, 2007 and Plaintiff’s

reply is due March 2, 2007.

Because there is some ostensible connection between the current discovery issues and

the pending motion for sanctions, the Court is inclined to grant a brief extension of time in order

to insure that it will receive papers that may be helpful in resolving that motion. The Court

HEREBY GRANTS an extension of time to February 26, 2007 for Defendants’ opposition to

the motion for sanctions. Plaintiff may have until March 12, 2007 to file its reply. This will be

the FINAL extension of time on the outstanding motions.

Finally, the proposed order modifying the stipulated protective order granted by the

Court on February 1, 2007 indicated that the parties considered the modified stipulated

protective order so entered as of that date. However, should the parties wish to have the Court

execute a protective order as modified by the Court’s order dated February 1, 2007, the parties

may re-submit an amended stipulated protective order for the Court’s consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02073-JSW Document 109 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2