Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01232/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01232-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH V. KAPUSTA,

NO. CIV. S-03-1232 LKK

Plaintiff,

v.

 O R D E R

GALE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

Pending on the court’s September 11, 2006 law and motion

calendar is plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order. The

court decides the matter on the papers and without oral argument.

It appears that plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery for the

purposes of compelling defendant to produce current financial

information necessary to calculate damages. Specifically,

plaintiff seeks financial records that were allegedly created while

the above captioned case was on appeal to the Federal Circuit.

According to the court’s scheduling order, issued on March 21,

2006, discovery in this case is closed (with the exception of

expert disclosures). Nonetheless, on May 17, 2006, plaintiff filed

Case 2:03-cv-01232-LKK -KJM Document 76 Filed 09/06/06 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

2

a motion to compel, which was heard before Magistrate Judge

Mueller. By minute order, Judge Mueller denied the motion and

cited to the court’s scheduling order, which states that all

nonexpert discovery is closed. 

In both it’s motion and reply brief plaintiff fails to set

forth any reason for why this court should disturb Judge Mueller’s

ruling. Moreover, to the extent that plaintiff seeks to amend the

scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16

(b), plaintiff has failed to set forth any good cause for why

discovery should be reopened. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,

Inc., 975 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the scheduling order is

DENIED.

2. The hearing set for September 11, 2006 is hereby

VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2006. 

Case 2:03-cv-01232-LKK -KJM Document 76 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 2