Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00071/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00071-3/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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY 

MANAGEMENT, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

EFFECTIVE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 15-cv-0071 YGR

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR EARLY 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRE-FILING 

CONFERENCE

The Court has reviewed the Requests for Pre-Filing Conference submitted by Defendants 

Chopra Consulting, LLC and Arvinder Chopra [“the Chopra Defendants”] (Dkt. No.64) and 

Defendants Effective Health Systems, Inc. and James Schlueter [“the EHS Defendants”] (Dkt. No. 

65), as well as the response filed by Plaintiff Comprehensive Industrial Disability Management, Inc. 

(Dkt. No. 66). Both requests appear to be premature given how little discovery has been completed 

to date. 

The interests of judicial economy do not favor the filing of a summary judgment motion that 

will only need to be deferred or denied under Rule 56(d) because the opposing party has not had 

sufficient opportunity for discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (“[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit 

or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the 

court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or 

declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.”) Further, this Court’s 

Standing Order In Civil Cases provides that “[o]nly one summary judgment motion may be filed per 

side, absent leave of court.” (Standing Order ¶ 9(b).) 

Until sufficient discovery has been conducted to address the factual issues raised in plaintiff's 

response, including, presumably, an exchange of expert reports, the current requests to file an early 

Case 4:15-cv-00071-YGR Document 69 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

summary judgment motion are DENIED. As previously indicated, the parties should focus discovery 

on key issues. Once completed, the Court is willing to entertain a revised request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 29, 2015 

_______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-00071-YGR Document 69 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 2