Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00544/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00544-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard G. Krauth, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CV 04-0544-PHX-PGR 

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

Phelps Dodge Corporation, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________)

Pending before the Court is the parties' Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing

Schedule for Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 59). The Defendants' Motion

for Summary Judgment Enforcing Settlement Agreement (Doc. 37) was filed with the Court

on January 23, 2006. The Plaintiffs requested expedited fact discovery on the subject of

settlement prior to the Plaintiffs filing an opposition to the motion. The Defendants agreed.

The parties have yet to finalize a schedule for such discovery. Instead, the parties ask that

they be allowed to notify the Court when the Defendants' motion is fully briefed so that the

Court may set a date for oral argument.

According to the Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. 41) governing this case, the

completion of fact discovery for the narrow issue of whether the parties reached an

enforceable settlement agreement is March 31, 2006. Furthermore, dispositive motions are

not due on this issue until May 1, 2006. Regardless, the Defendants filed their dispositive

motion at the end of January prior to the completion of such fact discovery. Although the

Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 60 Filed 02/28/06 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 - 2 -

parties now seek an open-ended extension of the summary judgment motion's briefing

schedule, the Court's policy is to never grant such requests. Despite the fact that the motion

for an extension is entirely inconsistent with the Court's Scheduling Order, the Plaintiffs will

have until March 31, 2006 to file their response in opposition to the Defendants' Motion for

Summary Judgment.

The parties were advised in this Court's Scheduling Order that this Court does not

entertain stipulations or agreements to extend deadlines, and that any such requests must be

brought by formal motion before the Court. The parties are reminded that this case is

governed by the dates set forth in this Court's Scheduling Order, or subsequent orders, not

private agreements between the parties. If the parties believe that good cause exists for the

extension of any deadline(s) remaining in this action, they must brief the issue to the Court,

including explanations as to why they are unable to comply with the deadline(s) imposed by

this Court, and whether the proposed change(s) will affect any other deadlines in the Court's

Scheduling Order, including deadlines imposed on other parties. 

IT IS ORDERED that the parties' Stipulated Request to Extend Briefing Schedule for

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The

Plaintiffs are to submit their response in opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment on or before March 31, 2006. The Defendants will have the customary fifteen (15)

days after the service of the responsive memorandum to file a reply memorandum. 

DATED this 28th day of February, 2006. 

Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 60 Filed 02/28/06 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 - 3 -

Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR Document 60 Filed 02/28/06 Page 3 of 3