Opinion
Case No. CV-08-4193 (JSC)
05-07-2013
WHITTLESTONE, INC., Plaintiff, v. HANDI-CRAFT COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENT OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE (DKT. NO.
185)
The Court is in receipt of a joint letter from the parties regarding a discovery dispute over the adequacy of Whittlestone's document production. (Dkt. No. 185.) After carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES Handi-Craft's request to compel further document production.
Pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 102) the fact discovery cut-off was May 14, 2012 and "motions to resolve discovery disputes [must] be heard before the [] discovery cut-off." Handi-Craft nonetheless waited until nearly a year after the fact discovery cut-off and six weeks before trial to seek to compel additional discovery from Whittlestone. Handi-Craft's attempt to boot-strap its request for these documents to the discovery dispute brought by the parties on May 15, 2012 (Dkt No. 105) by arguing that the documents sought here are "relevant" to documents sought in the prior timely discovery dispute is unpersuasive. Further, Handi-Craft's argument that Whittlestone had agreed to produce these documents an that Whittlestone is thus "not in compliance with its agreement," even if true, is immaterial. The Court set a deadline for filing motions to compel and Handi-Craft has neither sought relief from the Court's Scheduling Order nor demonstrated good cause to do so. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992) ("A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril." (internal quotations and citation omitted)).
Accordingly, Handi-Craft's untimely request to compel additional discovery from Whittlestone is DENIED.
This Order disposes of Docket. No. 185.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE