Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00533/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00533-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUNCAT LEISURE CRAFT, INC., and ) 

SUB SEA SYSTEMS, INC. ) 

) 2:06-cv-0533-GEB-GGH

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

JOHNSON OUTDOORS INC., )

)

Defendant. ) )

On February 12, 2007, Defendant filed a motion for

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order filed January 29,

2007. (Def.’s Motion for Reconsideration (“Mot.”) at 1:22-23.) 

Plaintiffs filed an opposition on February 23, 2007. (Pl.’s Opp’n to

Def.’s Request for Reconsideration.) On February 5, 2007, the

Magistrate Judge issued a related Order requiring Defendant to comply

with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests by Monday, February 26, 2007. 

///

/// 

Case 2:06-cv-00533-GEB-GGH Document 51 Filed 02/28/07 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 1 Further, it is unclear why Defendant did not seek a stay

from the Magistrate Judge. 

2

Defendant also summarily requested in its motion for

reconsideration “a stay of Judge Hollow’s February 5, 2007 Order.” 

(Mot. at 1:27-28, 2:1-2.) However, since Defendant did not properly

move for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

(“FRCP”) 26(c) and Local Rule 37-251, or other local rules, the stay

issue was not duly noticed for hearing or briefed.1 See FRCP 26(c);

see also 10 Fed. Proc., L. Ed. § 26:206 (“A motion to stay discovery

is tantamount to a request for a protective order prohibiting or

limiting discovery pursuant to FRCP 26(c).”). 

Since the February 26, 2007 deadline has passed, the merits

of Defendant’s request for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s

Order need not be reached because the Motion is deemed moot. (See

Mot. at 13:4-6, (Defendant conceded that the “Request for

Reconsideration would be rendered moot if Defendant were required to

answer Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.”.) Because of this ruling, the

Rule 16 scheduling order is modified as follows: each party shall

comply with FRCP 26(a)(2)’s initial expert disclosures and report

requirements on or before May 17, 2007, and with the rebuttal expert

disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before June 18, 2007; all

discovery shall be completed by October 17, 2007; the last hearing

date for motions shall be December 17, 2007; the final pretrial 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00533-GEB-GGH Document 51 Filed 02/28/07 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

 2 The above ruling requires this modification since on

December 15, 2006, Plaintiffs moved to extend the deadline for expert

disclosures on the grounds that Defendant “refused to produce any

documents or provide substantive responses to interrogatories leaving

Plaintiffs’ experts without the information they need to develop their

opinions.” (Pls.’ Motion to Extend the Deadline for Expert

Disclosures (“Mot. To Extend”) at 3:5-7.) This is the dispute that

was decided by the Magistrate Judge’s January 29, 2007 Order in

Plaintiff’s favor. Further, although Defendant objects to this

rescheduling, Defendant stated in its Opposition that “if the Court

were to grant Plaintiffs’ request it should move out all the deadlines

in the scheduling accordingly in order to avoid prejudicing

[Defendant].” (Def.’s Opp’n to Mot. To Extend at 7:26-27.)

3

conference shall commence at 2:30 p.m. on February 19, 2008; and trial

shall commence on May 20, 2008, at 9:00 a.m.2

 

Dated: February 27, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00533-GEB-GGH Document 51 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 3