Opinion ID: 506117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: refusal to extend discovery period

Text: 42 Finally, Sandlin claims that the district court's denial of his request for additional time for discovery denied him due process of law, and requests relief in the form of an additional 90 to 120 days for discovery. This request was properly denied by the district court. 43 On September 15, 1986 the district court issued an order setting the schedule for briefs and hearing on Century 21's motion for summary judgment. The order set a December 1, 1986 deadline for Sandlin's memorandum in opposition, and directed Sandlin to submit with his memorandum a detailed plan outlining his discovery needs and a schedule for accomplishing them. Sandlin's memorandum, filed one day late, lacked a discovery schedule. Eleven days later, and three days before summary judgment argument, he filed a request for an extension of discovery time in order to conduct a survey of the general public and of real estate firms and financial firms that used the name Century. He filed a second extension request on December 16th, the day after argument and after the court had issued a tentative ruling in Century 21's favor. 44 District court judges possess broad authority to regulate the conduct of discovery, and their decisions to limit discovery are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. American Mgmt. & Amusement, 824 F.2d 710, 716 (9th Cir.1987). 45 Denial of the extension requests did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Sandlin had three months in which to conduct discovery, but which he did not utilize. Given that Sandlin ignored the court's deadline and failed to submit a discovery plan as instructed, denial of the extension request was well within the court's discretion. 46 Alternatively, the district court would not have abused its discretion in declining to allow additional time for discovery designed to produce information not relevant to the case's disposition. Here, the information Sandlin sought to discover would not alter the district court's finding of a likelihood of confusion. Specifically, discovery that revealed other potential infringers would be irrelevant under the law of this circuit and of California. Citibank, N.A., 206 U.S.P.Q. at 1011; see also United States Jaycees v. San Francisco Junior Chamber of Commerce, 354 F.Supp. 61, 73-74 (N.D.Cal.1972), aff'd, 513 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir.1975). 47 Second, subpoenas from telephone company and local realty listing officials, even if they proved that Sandlin's continuing listings as Century 21 after termination of the franchise were not his fault, would not have altered the court's finding that Sandlin's use of the word Century in his name is confusing. The Century 21 listings were not given weight by the district court in its comments from the bench nor in its order granting summary judgment for Century 21. 48 Third, surveys demonstrating an absence of actual confusion among a certain population would not necessarily defeat the likelihood of confusion, given that Sandlin had operated under the name Century 21 before becoming Century Investments & Realty.CONCLUSION 49 The likelihood of confusion created by use of the word Century by a former Century 21 franchisee operating in the same line of business and in the same locale justified the summary judgment and injunction against Sandlin's use of the name Century Investments & Realty. A newcomer who has the 'entire material universe' or, stated in other terms, 'a whole dictionary full of words, an encyclopedia full of proper names, or a world atlas full of place names,' from which it could have chosen its name and mark, has the duty to avoid the use of a mark similar to an established one. Citibank N.A., 206 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) at 1009 (quoting Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 314 F.2d 149, 158 (9th Cir.1963)). 50 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.