Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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 1

Defendant Diana Musselman has not signed the stipulation, but has not filed any

opposition or other response thereto.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC INFORMATION RESOURCES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DIANA MUSSELMAN, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-2306 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE STIPULATION TO

CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUT-OFF,

DEADLINE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE

MOTIONS, STATUS CONFERENCE,

AND TRIAL DATE

The Court is in receipt of the Stipulation to Continue Discovery Cut-off Date, filed

October 11, 2007, on behalf of plaintiff and all but one of the remaining defendants who

have appeared herein.1

By said stipulation, the parties thereto seek to continue the non-expert discovery cutoff from November 9, 2007 to February 5, 2008, to continue the deadline to file dispositive

motions from February 1, 2008 to February 8, 2007, to continue the February 8, 2008

Status Conference to a date to be selected by the Court, and to continue the trial date from

May 5, 2008 to July 2008. The stipulating parties seek such relief on the ground

defendants have “required additional time” to respond to written discovery, thereby leaving

“no realistic time for any follow up discovery, including depositions,” and on the ground that

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 183 Filed 10/22/07 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

27

28

2

plaintiff’s counsel will, at an unspecified time, require knee surgery.

The showing by the stipulating parties is insufficient, given the paucity of information

provided. Moreover, the parties have not specifically addressed the deadline to disclose

expert reports and the deadline to complete expert discovery. Further, the stipulating

parties fail to explain why, given their request to continue the deadline to file dispositive

motions by only one week, why a two-month extension of the trial date is necessary.

Accordingly, the stipulation is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to the parties’

providing a more detailed showing of any good cause that may exist for any of the abovedescribed requested extensions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 183 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 2