Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00536/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00536-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

19cv536-GPC-LL 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PERFORMANCE DESIGNED 

PRODUCTS LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PLANTRONICS, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 19cv536-GPC-LL 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

PRE-ANSWER EARLY NEUTRAL 

EVALUATION OR TELEPHONIC 

STATUS CONFERENCE 

[ECF No. 42] 

 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte “Request for Early Neutral 

Evaluation.” [ECF No. 42] and Defendant’s Response [ECF No. 44]. Plaintiff requests that 

the Court schedule a pre-Answer Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) in this case. ECF No. 

42 at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff requests that the Parties’ CEOs be compelled to attend the 

ENE. Id. 

In their Response, Defendants assert that: (1) “the circumstances of this case do not 

justify deviating from an ENE scheduled in the ordinary course” and; (2) Plaintiff’s request 

that Defendants’ CEO participate “is []untethered from the Local Rules and this Court’s 

Civil Chamber Rules.” ECF No. 44 at 2. 

/// 

Case 3:19-cv-00536-GPC-LL Document 46 Filed 07/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

19cv536-GPC-LL 

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

RELEVANT BACKGROUND 

 This case arises from a trademark infringement dispute. On July 15, 2019, the Court: 

(1) granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint; and (2) 

denied Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See ECF No. 39. Additionally, the 

Court set the deadline for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint and a renewed 

motion for a preliminary injunction to July 19, 2019 . Id. at 15. 

 On July 19, 2019, the day of the Court’s deadline, Plaintiff filed: (1) a Second 

Amended Complaint [ECF No. 43]; (2) a motion requesting that the Court modify the 

deadline for filing its renewed motion until after an ENE in this case has been held [ECF 

No. 40]; and (3) a request for a pre-Answer ENE [ECF No. 42]. 

On July 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to continue the deadline for 

filing Plaintiff’s renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 45. 

ANALYSIS 

 Local Rule 16.1.c.1 provides that “[w]ithin forty-five (45) days of the filing of an 

answer, counsel and the parties must appear before the assigned judicial officer supervising 

discovery for an early neutral evaluation conference[.]” Local Rule 16.1.c.1 also provides 

that “[a]t any time after filing of a complaint and before an answer has been filed” counsel 

for any party may make a request for an ENE. 

In this case, Plaintiff provides no explanation for why a pre-Answer ENE in this case 

would be productive beyond a single, conclusory sentence that Plaintiff “has reason” to 

believe such an ENE “would assist in the reduction of expense and delay in this action.” 

Id. at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff does not state why an ENE would be productive before 

Defendants have had the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. 

The Court is further mindful Defendants have opposed Plaintiff’s request. 

Plaintiff similarly fails to justify its request to compel the attendance of the Parties’ 

CEOs at the ENE. As Defendants correctly note, the Local Rules of this Court and the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge’s Civil Chamber Rules require the in-person participation of 

a party representative with the requisite authority to negotiate and enter into settlement at 

Case 3:19-cv-00536-GPC-LL Document 46 Filed 07/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

19cv536-GPC-LL 

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

the ENE. See Local Rule 16.1.c.1.; Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez Civil Chamber Rules 

Section II.B. The Local Rules and the Civil Chamber Rules do not strictly require the 

participation of the Parties’ CEOs.1

 For the reasons stated above, the Court finds it inappropriate to convene a preAnswer ENE at this time. Plaintiff’s request to set an early in-person ENE with the CEOs 

of all Parties in attendance is DENIED. 

Plaintiff alternatively requests an attorneys-only telephonic status conference be set 

“to discuss matters that Defense counsel has requested Plaintiff’s counsel keep 

confidential.” ECF No. 42 at 2. As written, the Court is unable to determine whether such 

a status conference would be productive. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for a 

telephonic status conference is also DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2019 

 

 

 

                                               

1

 The Court’s Order does not excuse the party representatives from appearing in-person at 

a later scheduled ENE. This includes the Parties’ CEOs, if it is determined that the CEOs 

are the only representatives with the requisite settlement authority. 

Case 3:19-cv-00536-GPC-LL Document 46 Filed 07/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3