Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01166/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01166-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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 - 08cv1166

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANSEN BEVERAGE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-1166 IEG (POR)

ORDER DENYING JOINT

MOTION TO BIFURCATE THE

DAMAGES PHASE OF THIS CASE

(Doc. No. 122)

vs.

INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC dba

LIVING ESSENTIALS, a Michigan

corporation,

Defendant.

 The parties have submitted a joint motion to bifurcate the issue of damages for discovery

and trial in this case. For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion.

Plaintiff filed this action on July 1, 2008, alleging false advertising and trade libel. 

Magistrate Judge Porter initially issued a scheduling order on December 9, 2008, setting a timetable

for discovery, motions, and pretrial matters. According to that initial Scheduling Order, the Pretrial

Conference was set for December 21, 2009. 

Upon the parties’ joint motion, on February 24, 2009, Magistrate Judge Porter revised the

parties’ Scheduling Order, adjusting some of the interim discovery and other dates. Upon the

parties’ subsequent joint motion, Magistrate Judge Porter issued a Modified Scheduling Order on

April 7, 2009, further extending the parties’ time to conduct discovery and also continuing the

Pretrial Conference to March 22, 2010. 

Upon the parties’ further joint motion, on August 6, 2009, this Court again continued the

Pretrial Conference date to May 24, 2010, and on August 11, 2009, Magistrate Judge Porter issued

another Modified Scheduling Order giving the parties additional time to conduct discovery and

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 127 Filed 10/07/09 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 1

Magistrate Judge Porter initially denied this application, but counsel renewed the application

on September 23, 2009, and such application was referred to Magistrate Judge Porter for disposition.

- 2 - 08cv1166

complete pretrial matters. 

On September 9, 2009, Defendant Innovation Ventures, LLC filed an ex parte application

seeking further extension of the discovery and pretrial conference dates. This application1

 sought

an extension of the discovery and related dates, and requested that the Pretrial Conference be

continued to September 13, 2010. Prior to obtaining a ruling on Defendant’s application, the

parties filed the current joint motion to bifurcate the damages phase of this case. Magistrate Judge

Porter thereafter granted the Defendant’s ex parte application, and issued yet another Modified

Scheduling Order.

The parties’ current joint motion asks the Court to bifurcate not only the trial, but also all

fact and expert discovery relating to damages. The parties seek leave to proceed to pretrial and trial

only on the issue of liability, and then, only if there is a finding of liability, commence discovery

and proceed to trial on the issue of damages. 

The parties’ desire to conserve time and expense relating to damages discovery would have

been reasonable if they had proposed bifurcation nearly ten months ago when the original

Scheduling Order was issued, or at any time earlier this year when the parties were seeking one of

their numerous extensions of time. However, the parties have already sought and obtained four

extensions of their discovery dates. The Pretrial Conference has been continued three times, and is

currently set for September 13, 2010. The parties’ proposed bifurcation of discovery and trial on

the issue of damages would significantly delay the final resolution of this case. Because of the

length of time this case has been pending, and in light of the numerous continuances the parties

have already obtained, the Court finds the parties’ proposal is unreasonable and lacks good cause.

The parties’ joint motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 7, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 127 Filed 10/07/09 Page 2 of 2