From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal International Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 10, 2006
No. 2:05-cv-01468-GEB-JFM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006)

Opinion

No. 2:05-cv-01468-GEB-JFM.

February 10, 2006


ORDER


On February 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Modify the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order ("Motion to Modify"), which seeks to extend the deadline for expert witness disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). On February 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application ("Application"), which seeks to accelerate the hearing date on the Motion to Modify. The Application represents Plaintiff asked Defendant to stipulate to the accelerated hearing date, but Defendant refused.

Upon review, the Court has decided to modify the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order in a manner that moots both the Application and the Motion to Modify. Therefore, both are denied, and the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order is modified as follows:

(1) Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)'s initial expert witness disclosure and report requirements on or before May 8, 2006, and any rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under the Rule on or before June 19, 2006.

(2) All discovery shall be completed by November 8, 2006.

(3) The last hearing date for motions shall be January 8, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

(4) The Final Pretrial Conference is set for March 5, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.

This modification has been made in part because Plaintiff requested a later expert disclosure date than was prescribed in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order. Unfortunately, shortening the length of time between the Final Pretrial Conference and the trial date will interfere with the assignment of a settlement judge because there will be less time for a judge to absorb a settlement conference on his or her docket. As a result, the parties will not be assigned a settlement judge should they ultimately conclude that one would be beneficial.

Trial will commence on April 17, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal International Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 10, 2006
No. 2:05-cv-01468-GEB-JFM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006)
Case details for

Nike, Inc. v. Nikepal International Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NIKE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff, v. NIKEPAL INTERNATIONAL…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 10, 2006

Citations

No. 2:05-cv-01468-GEB-JFM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006)