Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01946/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01946-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALKER & ZANGER, INC,

Plaintiff,

v

PARAGON INDUSTRIES, INC,

Defendant. /

No C-04-1946 VRW

ORDER

On November 17, 2005, plaintiff Walker & Zanger, Inc

(“Walker Zanger”) informed the court that defendant Paragon

Industries, Inc (“Paragon”) has yet “to produce certain basic

categories of financial information relevant to an assessment of

damages in this case.” Doc #65 at 1. Paragon responded on

November 19, 2005, that it “has answered [Walker Zanger’s] requests

as completely as it can without going through boxes of thousands of

individual invoices at numerous locations.” Doc #66 at 1. Because

the fact discovery cutoff was November 18, 2005, Paragon asked the

court to continue “deadlines and cutoffs to provide sufficient time

for Paragon to fully investigate this evidence.” Id at 2.

Case 3:04-cv-01946-VRW Document 67 Filed 12/22/05 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

Although the court previously extended discovery cutoffs,

Doc #60, the court once again EXTENDS both the fact discovery

cutoff and the expert discovery cutoff to December 30, 2005. All

wrap-up and last-minute discovery must be completed by that date

and time limits are shortened to require both parties to serve and

file discovery responses not later than three business days after a

discovery request.

Furthermore, neither party may introduce or use at trial

or for any other purpose and no retained witness may rely upon any

evidence that has not been produced to the adverse party prior to

December 30, 2005, unless the party can establish to the

satisfaction of the court that such evidence did not exist or could

not have been procured prior to December 30, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01946-VRW Document 67 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 2