Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306-28/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 GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART STIPULATION TO

CONTINUE CERTAIN DEADLINES

CONTAINED IN PRETRIAL

PREPARATION ORDER

By order filed October 22, 2007, the Court denied the Stipulation to Continue

Discovery Cut-off Date, filed October 11, 2007, on the ground the showing made was

“insufficient, given the paucity of information provided.” The Court, however, afforded the

parties leave to provide a “more detailed showing of any good cause that may exist for any

[ ] requested extensions.”

Now before the Court is the “Stipulation to Continue Certain Deadlines Contained in

the Pre-Trial Preparation Order,” filed November 12, 2007, on behalf of plaintiff and all but

one of the remaining defendants who have appeared herein.1

 In said stipulation, the

parties request that the pretrial deadlines be extended approximately three months, and

that the pretrial conference and trial dates be extended approximately two months. Having

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 185 Filed 11/19/07 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

reviewed the stipulation, the Court rules as follows.

Although the instant stipulation contains several additional facts pertaining to

plaintiff’s asserted inability to timely complete discovery, no facts are provided as to why

defendants have been unable to timely complete discovery. Moreover, the few facts the

parties do provide are insufficient to warrant extensions of the length requested. 

Nevertheless, because the parties may have mutually relied on either or both stipulations,

and in light of the showing that plaintiff may need some additional time to conduct

discovery, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion, to the extent the Court will afford the

parties a short extension with respect to discovery deadlines and the deadline to file

dispositive motions, as follows:

1. The deadline to complete fact discovery is extended from November 9, 2007 to

December 7, 2007.

2. The deadline to designate experts is extended from November 30, 2007 to

December 28, 2007.

3. The deadline to designate rebuttal experts is extended from December 28, 2007

to January 18, 2008.

4. The deadline to complete expert discovery is extended from January 18, 2008 to

February 8, 2008.

5. The deadline to file dispositive motions is extended from February 1, 2008 to

February 22, 2008.

To the extent the parties seek further extensions, the stipulation is hereby DENIED.

The February 8, 2008 Status Conference remains as initially scheduled, the April 22,

2008 Pretrial Conference remains as initially scheduled, and the May 5, 2008 Trial remains

as initially scheduled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 185 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2