Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02540/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02540-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 7:6(b) Federal Commodity Exchange Regulation

---

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

1

At the July 30, 2007 case management conference, the Court ordered the parties to

begin discovery no later than August 31, 2007. Discovery disputes were referred to Judge

Zimmerman by written order on September 5, 2007.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES

TRADING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

GILBERT PHILIP CASTILLO, JR.,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C06-2540 TEH 

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT CASTILLO’S

REQUEST TO CONTINUE

TRIAL DATE

The Court has carefully reviewed the January 7, 2008 filing by Defendant Gilbert

Castillo, Jr. and does not find good cause to continue the discovery cut-off date and trial date

in this case. The trial date and discovery cut-off were set at the January 7, 2008 case

management conference with Castillo present, and Castillo himself proposed a June 2008

trial date. When the Court explained that a June 17, 2008 trial date corresponded to a

March 3, 2008 discovery cut-off and asked whether Castillo would be able to comply with

that cut-off date, Castillo stated that he could meet that deadline provided that the

government responded to his discovery requests. As the Court explained at the case

management conference, all discovery disputes in this matter have been referred to

Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman.1

 Castillo should therefore bring any outstanding

discovery disputes to Judge Zimmerman in accordance with Judge Zimmerman’s initial

discovery order (docket no. 78).

Castillo did not raise any other objections to the setting of the trial and related pretrial

dates during the case management conference. The Court explained that a March 3, 2008

discovery cut-off meant that March 3, 2008 was the last day on which the parties could

Case 3:06-cv-02540-TEH Document 106 Filed 01/08/08 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

Counsel for Plaintiff United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission

appeared at the January 7, 2008 case management conference telephonically and therefore

was unable to sign the pretrial order. However, counsel did not express any disagreement

with the dates ordered at the pretrial conference and was instructed to sign the order once it

had been electronically filed and to lodge his signature with the Court.

2

conduct discovery, not the last day to send out requests. Castillo made no objection. The

Court also asked Castillo to sign the order for pretrial preparation, explaining that doing so

meant that he acknowledged that the trial and pretrial dates contained therein were orders of

this Court. Castillo signed the order without expressing any reservations.

Castillo has failed to demonstrate good cause to vacate the trial and other related dates

to which he agreed at the case management conference, and Castillo’s request – which is yet

another example of his continuing effort to delay and obstruct progress in this case – is

therefore DENIED. As with all of its orders, the Court expects full compliance with the

Order for Pretrial Preparation signed by the Court and Castillo and filed by the Court on

January 7, 2008.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/08/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-02540-TEH Document 106 Filed 01/08/08 Page 2 of 2