Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01572/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01572-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP No. 2:07-cv-01572-MCE-DAD

a New York limited liability

partnership,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

GALE CORP., A California

corporation also known as

GALE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

______________________________

And Related Counterclaim and

Third Party Complaint.

----oo0oo----

On August 4, 2008, the Court approved a Stipulation and

Order permitting Defendant/Counterclaimant Gale Corp. (“Gale”) to

file its Motion to Modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order, and to

hear the Motion on shortened time on August 8, 2008. 

///

Case 2:07-cv-01572-MCE -DAD Document 22 Filed 08/08/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiff/

Counterdefendant Greenberg Traurig (“Greenberg Traurig”) filed

its Opposition to Gale’s Motion on August 5, 2008. Having

considered the papers submitted, the Court grants the Motion.1

The Court’s Scheduling Order may be modified upon a showing

of “good cause” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16(b). Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers

the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Here, the declaration of Gale’s counsel, Rudy Nolen, indicates

that he has been in trial continuously since June 2, 2008 and

expects to be engaged in three additional back-to-back trials

that will not be completed until the end of November, 2008. 

Although the parties have engaged in significant discovery since

the time of the Court’s February 8, 2008 Pretrial (Status)

Scheduling Order, and although a number of depositions have

apparently been taken on days when Mr. Nolen’s current trial is

not in session, Nolen has represented to the Court that given his

trial commitments as outlined above he cannot complete discovery

by the time of the August 15, 2008 deadline currently set. 

Consequently he has requested an extension of the discovery

deadline until January 15, 2009.

In opposition, Greenberg Traurig’s attorneys do not take

issue either with Mr. Nolen’s diligence or with the accuracy of

his trial schedule as reported to the Court. 

Case 2:07-cv-01572-MCE -DAD Document 22 Filed 08/08/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Rather, they argue only that the continuance requested for

discovery is too lengthy, and that only a two-month continuance

is necessary.

Under the circumstances, the Court finds Mr. Nolen’s

continuance request to be reasonable. Consequently, with good

cause appearing therefor, the Court GRANTS Gale’s Motion to

Extend the Completion of Discovery to and including January 15,

2009. The Court will issue an Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order

setting forth the other deadlines in this case, which will be

continued commensurately with the extended discovery deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2008

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01572-MCE -DAD Document 22 Filed 08/08/08 Page 3 of 3