Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01181/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01181-7/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

1

 Presumably this latter extension request is intended to refer

to the time for having discovery motions heard relating only to

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COZAD TRAILER SALES LLC, NO. CIV.S-05-1181 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

RACKLEY BILT TRAILER SALES, 

et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

The parties have filed a fourth stipulation and proposed

order seeking to extend the time to complete discovery in this

action. In this regard, the parties seek up to and including August

31, 2006, for plaintiff to disclose experts and for the parties to

complete all non-expert discovery. The parties also seek “an

extension of the discovery motion cut-off date to and including

September 30, 2006.”1 (Stipulation at 2.) 

Case 2:05-cv-01181-WBS-DAD Document 53 Filed 08/10/06 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

expert discovery, since the parties having proposed that non-expert

discovery be completed by August 31, 2006.

2

 The parties represent that a motion for summary judgment has

been heard and is currently under submission and that no other

dispositive motions are planned by either side.

2

The initial scheduling order issued by the assigned

district judge in this case provides as follows with respect to

modifications of that order:

Any requests to modify the dates or terms of this

Scheduling Order, except requests to change the

dates of the Final Pretrial Conference or trial,

may be heard and decided by the assigned

Magistrate Judge. All requests to change the

dates of the Pretrial Conference and/or trial

shall be heard and decided only by the

undersigned judge.

(Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order at 4-5.) Thus, the undersigned

is authorized to modify only the dates regarding discovery and law

and motion deadlines but is not authorized to change the Final

Pretrial Conference or trial dates.

On its face, the fourth stipulation and proposed order

submitted by the parties concerns only discovery dates. However, 

the additional time sought by the parties to continue to conduct

discovery would appear to necessitate a change in the Final Pretrial

Conference and/or trial dates as well. For example, it would not

appear workable for the parties to have a “discovery motion cut-off

date to and including September 30, 2006,” while still maintaining

the Final Pretrial Conference date of October 10, 2006, just ten days

later.2

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01181-WBS-DAD Document 53 Filed 08/10/06 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

3

Accordingly, because the parties’ fourth stipulation and

proposed order extending discovery dates in this action would

necessitate a change in the Final Pretrial Conference and trial

dates, the parties’ request is denied is without prejudice to the

parties seeking modification of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

Order by the assigned district judge. 

DATED: August 9, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.civil\cozad1181.eot4

Case 2:05-cv-01181-WBS-DAD Document 53 Filed 08/10/06 Page 3 of 3