Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03114/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03114-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT—No. C-04-03114 RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 6-8-2006

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ISMART INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, an

India Company,

Plaintiff,

v.

I-DOCSECURE, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company; E-NETSECURE

SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation;

INTEGRITY DATA APPLICATIONS

CONSULTING, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company; JOSEPH BAGGIO, an

individual; and JONATHAN BALZORA, an

individual,,

Defendants.

No. C-04-03114 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER

SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND COMPLAINT

[Re Docket Nos. 193, 195]

Plaintiff iSmart International Limited moves for an order shortening time on its pending

motion for leave to amend its complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add one new party and several new

causes of action. Plaintiff's main justification for an expedited briefing schedule appears to be the

facts that the current deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses is June 16 and the close of

non-expert discovery is June 28. The defendants oppose the motion but state that they "are willing

to discuss modification" of the discovery schedule. Docket no. 195 at 3. 

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 198 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT—No. C-04-03114 RMW

JAH 2

If the court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, modification of the current schedule

for the case may well be appropriate, but such modification will be moot if the court denies the

motion. Any potential prejudice to plaintiff can be cured by modification of the case schedule if

warranted; prejudice to the defendants from having little time to respond to plaintiff's motion to

amend cannot be easily cured. Plaintiff's motion to move forward the hearing date on its motion to

amend is denied.

DATED: 6/8/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 198 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT—No. C-04-03114 RMW

JAH 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Joseph Kouri joseph.kouri@sdma.com 

Marc A. Koonin marc.koonin@sdma.com

Counsel for Defendants:

James Arthur Hughes jah@greenstamps.com 

Michael N. Edelman michael.edelman@dechert.com 

Robert T. Sullwold

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 6-8-2006 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 198 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 3