Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CALPHALON CORPORATION,

CASE NO. CIV. S-05-0971 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

MEYER CORPORATION, U.S.,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

 Defendant Meyer Corporation has filed an ex parte

application for an order shortening time for notice of a motion

for leave to file an amended counterclaim. Defendant’s allegedly

urgent need for an order shortening time rests entirely on the

fact that discovery is about to close. 

In the scheduling order of August 8, 2005, the court

ordered that “[a]ll discovery . . . shall be . . . completed by

February 17, 2006. The word ‘completed’ means that all discovery

shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken

and any disputes relevant to discovery shall have been resolved .

. . .” (Aug. 8, 2005 Order 2-3.) Defendant believes that if

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 41 Filed 02/06/06 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

this court hears its motion on February 10 and issues an order

granting defendant’s motion to amend its counterclaim sometime

thereafter, the parties will still have sufficient time to

conduct discovery related to “a new patent, new named inventor,

new owner, a new time period, and new . . . products” before

February 17. (Def.’s Ex Parte App. 2; Pl.’s Opp’n 6.)

It would be impossible for the necessary discovery on a

new patent infringement counterclaim to be initiated and

completed within the period of one week. Moreover, if the court

permits defendant to amend the counterclaim at this late date, it

will necessarily need to amend the scheduling order. See Johnson

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). 

If the court grants defendant’s motion to file its amended

counterclaim, the court could thus, at the same time, amend the

scheduling order regarding discovery to accommodate defendant’s

new counterclaim. There is no urgent need for the court to

shorten time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s ex parte

application for an order shortening time for notice of a motion

for leave to file an amended counterclaim be, and the same hereby

is, DENIED. 

DATED: February 3, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 41 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2