Opinion
20-cv-04659-EJD (VKD)
06-15-2022
CHALLENGE PRINTING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES
Re: Dkt. No. 73
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Challenge Printing Company, Inc. (“Challenge Printing”) asks for an order extending the parties' deadlines to conduct expert discovery regarding defendant Electronics for Imaging, Inc.'s (“EFI”) financial condition. Dkt. No. 73. The presiding judge has referred the matter to the undersigned for decision. Dkt. No. 76. The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-11(b).
The present motion to extend expert discovery deadlines rests on many of the same arguments Challenge Printing made in support of its earlier motion to extend the fact discovery deadline. See Dkt. No. 55. In particular, Challenge Printing cites the fact that EFI produced documents on November 17, 2021 reflecting that the company has negative net worth. Compare Dkt. No. 55-1 ¶ 3 with Dkt. No. 73 at 2-3. Although the deadlines to exchange expert disclosures (January 14, 2022) and to complete expert discovery (February 28, 2022) had not yet passed when Challenge Printing first learned EFI claimed to have negative net worth, see Dkt. No. 50, Challenge Printing apparently elected not to retain an expert witness to provide testimony regarding EFI's financial condition at that time. Now, well after the expert discovery deadlines have passed, Challenge Printing seeks to reopen expert discovery so that it can develop expert testimony on this point. Challenge Printing principally relies on EFI's production of an audited financial statement on April 22, 2022, which also shows that the company has negative net worth. See Dkt. No. 73 at 3.
Challenge Printing has not shown good cause for the relief it seeks. It has had ample opportunity to obtain both fact and expert discovery concerning EFI's net worth and financial condition. EFI's April 2022 production of an audited financial statement, pursuant to this Court's order, does not by itself justify reopening expert discovery. Although Challenge Printing claims that the April 2022 statement “varies in both form and substance from the unaudited document EFI produced in November 2021, ” see id., Challenge Printing does not explain how the statements vary or why the April 2022 statement creates a need for expert testimony while the November 2021 statement (which also shows negative net worth) did not.
For these reasons, the Court denies Challenge Printing's motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.