Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02322/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02322-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH FACILITY, )

) 2:05-cv-2322-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

NBTY, INC., REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., )

and LE NATURISTE J.M.B. INC., )

)

Defendants. )

)

On July 13, 2006, the parties filed a joint motion to stay

the proceedings for sixty days “to allow the parties to pursue ongoing

settlement discussions.” (Mot. at 2.) The parties state they “have

made significant progress” in settlement discussions “in the past week

or so,” and “they now believe . . . a ‘cease fire’ is warranted to

foster the further discussions that remain.” (Id. at 2-3.) In

addition, the parties assert a stay will “avoid [a] potentially

unnecessary burden upon the Court and upon the parties” since “each

side has additional written discovery responses due in the near

future” and “a number of motions and discovery matters are currently

pending in the action,” namely a motion to dismiss before the District

Judge and motions to compel discovery before the Magistrate Judge. 

(Id.) 

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 41 Filed 07/17/06 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

Although the stay motion is denied, modifications are 1

made to the status of the action in order to provide the parties

with the settlement opportunity they seek, and to concomitantly

ensure that the action is scheduled for litigation should

settlement efforts fail. Cf. Franklin v. Kaypro Corp., 884 F.2d

1222, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating “the policy of federal courts

is to promote settlement before trial,” but indicating litigation

should remain scheduled on “crowded court dockets”). 

The District Judge was unable to effectuate rescheduling 2

the motions to compel.

2

Although the parties indicate the requested stay will affect

some of the dates prescribed in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order

filed February 13, 2006, (“Status Order”) the parties fail to address 

the litigation status of this action should settlement not be reached. 

Since this has not been addressed, granting the stay would cause the

litigation status of the action to be uncertain. Therefore, the stay

motion is denied. However, in light of the parties’ representation

that they are trying to resolve the action in sixty days “amicably and

without the need for further intervention from the Court,” the

opportunity for the parties to “cease fire” will be granted as

follows.1

The hearing on the motion to dismiss currently scheduled for

August 7, 2006, is continued to October 2, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. In

addition, the July 21, 2006, hearing before the Magistrate Judge on

the motions to compel is vacated with the understanding that the

parties will contact the Magistrate Judge’s Courtroom Deputy to

reschedule it if rescheduling it desired. Lastly, the Status Order 2

is amended as follows:

(1) Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(a)(2)’s initial expert witness disclosure and report

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 41 Filed 07/17/06 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

By shortening the time frame between the final pretrial 3

conference and trial commencement date, the parties are warned that

it is unlikely a court-supervised settlement conference will be

convened, which the previous gap between the dates was intended to

ensure. 

3

requirements on or before October 27, 2006, and with the rebuttal

expert disclosures authorized under the Rule on or before 

November 27, 2006; 

(2) All discovery shall be completed by March 30, 2007; 

(3) The last hearing date for law and motion is 

April 30, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.; 

(4) The final pretrial conference shall commence 

at 2:30 p.m. on June 18, 2007.

The trial date of August 7, 2007, remains unchanged.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 14, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02322-GEB-DAD Document 41 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 3