Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTAGIO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-3592 PJH (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S EX

PARTE MOTION FOR THIRTY-DAY

EXTENSION

(Docket No. 111)

Defendant Tiger Oak Publications, Inc. has filed an ex parte motion asking for thirty

additional days to respond to written discovery propounded by Plaintiff Intagio Corp. The written

discovery consists of twenty interrogatories, fifty-four requests for admission, and two document

requests. Currently, the responses are due on June 26, 2007. According to Tiger Oak, an extension

is needed because, at or about the time that the responses are due, its main attorney is on jury duty

and then on a pre-planned vacation and because the Tiger Oak employees who must be contacted in

order to respond to the discovery are located in Minnesota. Tiger Oak also argues that Intagio will

not suffer any prejudice from an extension since, inter alia, discovery does not close until September

4, 2007.

As a preliminary issue, the Court notes that Tiger Oak’s motion is not a proper ex parte

matter. See Civ. L.R. 7-10 (providing that “a party may file an ex parte motion, that is, a motion

filed without notice to opposing party, only if a statute, Federal Rule, local rule or Standing Order

authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion in the circumstances and the party has complied with the

applicable provisions allowing the party to approach the Court on an ex parte basis”). Furthermore,

the Court previously instructed the parties that, for any future discovery dispute, they should submit

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 114 Filed 06/20/07 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

a joint letter. That was not done here. However, Intagio has already submitted an opposition to

Tiger Oak’s ex parte motion and, in the interest of moving the litigation forward, the Court

addresses the merits of Tiger Oak’s request for relief.

The discovery sought by Intagio is not insignificant, consisting of, as noted above, more than

seventy requests total. That being said, in spite of the number of requests, the discovery is not

overly burdensome. For example, the requests for admission are, as a general matter, uncomplicated

and straightforward. The interrogatories would seem to require the most effort but they are limited

to twenty in number. The Court would ordinarily expect that responses to such discovery could be

provided in thirty days – even taking into account that Tiger Oak’s employees are not located in

California.

However, the Court would also expect that parties extend to one another basic “litigation

courtesies.” Because, in the instant case, Tiger Oak’s main attorney is dealing with other matters

that make it more difficult to provide discovery responses in a timely manner, and Intagio has not

demonstrated that it would be prejudiced by an extension (especially in light of the discovery cutoff), an extension is justified. While Intagio was willing to give an extension to Tiger Oak, that was

conditioned on Tiger Oak’s giving up the right to, e.g., file any papers (other than responses to

Intagio submissions) during the 30-day extension period. Such a limitation was patently

unreasonable.

The Court therefore grants Tiger Oak’s request for an extension. The Court further takes this

opportunity to forewarn both parties that a failure to meet and confer in good faith will lead to

imposition of sanctions on both parties.

This order disposes of Docket No. 111.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 114 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 2