1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 6 DOCKLIGHT BRANDS INC, 7 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01692-TL 8 v. ORDER GRANTING TILRAY INC. and HIGH PARK AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 10 HOLDINGS LTD, 11 Defendants.
12 Defendants Tilray Brands, Inc. (“Tilray”) and High Park Holdings Ltd. (“High Park”), 13 (collectively “Defendants”) request a six-month extension of the current trial date (February 5, 14 2024) and related pretrial deadlines, based on new claims and damages asserted in Plaintiff’s 15 Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 163). Dkt. 171. Plaintiff Docklight Brands, Inc. (“Docklight”) 16 opposes an extension of the trial date but is not opposed to a one-month extension of the 17 discovery deadline. Dkt. 181. The Court grants Defendants’ motion. 19 On May 1, 2023, Docklight moved to file a Third Amended Complaint to assert new 20 allegations and new damages based on the Marley Estate’s termination of the “license agreement 21 under which Docklight held the rights to the Marley brand that it licensed to Defendants in 22 Canada and to other sublicensees in the ‘U.S. and globally.’” Dkt. 152; see Dkt. 163 (Third 23 Amended Compl.) ¶ 4.23. Defendants opposed the amendment for several reasons, including the 1 necessity of continuing the trial date to allow for additional discovery. Dkt. 155 at 4, 14. On May 2 26, 2023, the Court found there was sufficient time for the parties to complete discovery, 3 declined to extend the February 2024 trial date, which was nine months away, and granted 4 Docklight’s motion to amend its complaint. Dkt. 162 at 10.
5 On June 20, 2023, Docklight filed its Supplemental Initial Disclosures identifying eight 6 additional sublicensees and describing its new damage claim for its loss of rights to the Marley 7 Brand in the amount of $125 million – which is in addition to its original claims of 8 approximately $15 million for failure to pay GMR and failure to commercialize licensed 9 property, and attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. 172, Gazzola Decl., Ex. A at 3 (Docklight’s Revised 10 Initial Disclosure). 11 Discovery was to be completed by July 10, 2023, and the dispositive motion deadline is 12 set for October 6, 2023. Dkts. 146 and 148.1 Docklight proposes a new discovery deadline of 13 October 6, 2023 – the current deadline for the filing of summary judgment motions. Docklight 14 also represents its production in response to the pre-amendment discovery is nearly complete and
15 that it will substantially complete its promised production in response to new discovery by 16 August 5, 2023. Dkt. 182, Brown Decl., ¶ 2 & Ex. A. Defendants argue this does not allow 17 sufficient time to complete discovery in advance of summary judgment because Docklight’s 18 amendment expands the relevant scope of discovery from Canada-only to worldwide, and from 19 analysis of one sublicense to nine sublicenses. Defendants also contend remaining document 20
21 1 There are currently three dispositive motions pending: (1) Docklight’s motion for partial summary judgment as to all counterclaims and affirmative defenses that survived Docklight’s 22 Rule 12(b)(6) motion (except mitigation of damages); (2) Docklight’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to counterclaims and defenses Defendants added in January 2023; and (3) 23 Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to those later-added claims and defenses. See Dkts. 90, 169, 177. 1 discovery, up to nineteen fact depositions, opening and rebuttal reports from several experts, and 2 expert depositions cannot be completed by October 6, 2023. 4 A court’s scheduling order can be modified “for good cause and with the judge’s
5 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The good cause standard ‘primarily considers the diligence 6 of the party seeking amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot 7 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Wild Fish 8 Conservancy v. Cooke Aquaculture Pac., LLC, 2019 WL 1755306, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 9 2019) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). 10 Docklight does not dispute its amendment altered the scope of the lawsuit to encompass 11 its worldwide activity (adding a new claim of $125 million and eight sublicense agreements) but 12 argues the expansion is not significant because non-Canadian damages are only 40% of 13 requested damages (Dkt. 181 at 6) and because five of Docklight’s contracts account for only 14 10% of damages (Dkt. 183, ¶ 2). However, these are still vast figures: 40% of Docklight’s
15 additional demand is $50 million, and 10% is $12.5 million—virtually the total amount of 16 damages claimed by Docklight before the filing of its Third Amended Complaint. Also prior to 17 the filing of the Third Amended Complaint, the only relevant sublicense was the sublicense 18 between High Park and Docklight. Now there are eight additional contractual relationship and 19 parties – some of whom are international (see Dkt. 172, at 8, Ex. A). Even if five of those 20 contracts apparently only made up 10% of Docklight’s revenue, this does not reduce the need for 21 additional discovery into those five separate relationships. 22 Additionally, Docklight agrees the Court should impose a new discovery deadline. 23 However, Docklight’s proposal of a new discovery deadline for the same day as the filing of 1 dispositive motions does not allow sufficient time for all parties to prepare any remaining 2 dispositive motions after discovery is closed with the benefit of depositions and expert rebuttal 3 reports. 4 Each party disputes the other’s diligence in completing the pre-amendment discovery in a
5 timely manner. At the time the Court granted Docklight leave to amend, it was assumed any new 6 discovery related to Docklight’s claims could “be completed at approximately the same time as 7 the remaining outstanding discovery.” Dkt. 157 at 7. While the parties argue who is at fault, it is 8 clear this is no longer true – no depositions have been scheduled, the parties are still conferring 9 about the scope of document discovery, and documents responsive to pre-amendment requests 10 and post-amendment requests are now promised for August 5, 2023. Further discovery related to 11 Docklight’s new claim (eight new third-party sublicensees and a damage claim of $125 million) 12 has barely begun. See, e.g., Dkt. 185, Gazzola Decl. ¶ 6. Given that Docklight’s new claims 13 make the performance of Docklight’s international sublicensees relevant (Docklight claims 14 damages for loss of those sublicenses through 2044), it is highly unlikely Defendants could
15 obtain third-party discovery prior to the proposed discovery deadline (or that they could 16 reasonably have obtained it between the June 20th supplemental disclosures and the July 10th 17 discovery deadline). 18 The Court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ proposed extension of the trial date and 19 pretrial deadlines. Docklight’s amendment expands the scope of relevant discovery from 20 Canada-only to worldwide, from analysis of one sublicense to nine sublicenses, and $125 million 21 in newly claimed damages. Defendants will be prejudiced if they cannot complete discovery into 22 the sales, marketing, expenses, and financials of Docklight and its third-party sublicensees 23 world-wide sufficiently in advance of summary judgment. It is highly unlikely that the remaining 1 document discovery, anticipated to include up to nineteen fact depositions, opening and rebuttal 2 reports from several experts, and expert depositions, can be completed by Docklight’s proposed 3 deadline of October 6, 2023 (when dispositive motions are due).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 6 DOCKLIGHT BRANDS INC, 7 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01692-TL 8 v. ORDER GRANTING TILRAY INC. and HIGH PARK AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 10 HOLDINGS LTD, 11 Defendants.
12 Defendants Tilray Brands, Inc. (“Tilray”) and High Park Holdings Ltd. (“High Park”), 13 (collectively “Defendants”) request a six-month extension of the current trial date (February 5, 14 2024) and related pretrial deadlines, based on new claims and damages asserted in Plaintiff’s 15 Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 163). Dkt. 171. Plaintiff Docklight Brands, Inc. (“Docklight”) 16 opposes an extension of the trial date but is not opposed to a one-month extension of the 17 discovery deadline. Dkt. 181. The Court grants Defendants’ motion. 19 On May 1, 2023, Docklight moved to file a Third Amended Complaint to assert new 20 allegations and new damages based on the Marley Estate’s termination of the “license agreement 21 under which Docklight held the rights to the Marley brand that it licensed to Defendants in 22 Canada and to other sublicensees in the ‘U.S. and globally.’” Dkt. 152; see Dkt. 163 (Third 23 Amended Compl.) ¶ 4.23. Defendants opposed the amendment for several reasons, including the 1 necessity of continuing the trial date to allow for additional discovery. Dkt. 155 at 4, 14. On May 2 26, 2023, the Court found there was sufficient time for the parties to complete discovery, 3 declined to extend the February 2024 trial date, which was nine months away, and granted 4 Docklight’s motion to amend its complaint. Dkt. 162 at 10.
5 On June 20, 2023, Docklight filed its Supplemental Initial Disclosures identifying eight 6 additional sublicensees and describing its new damage claim for its loss of rights to the Marley 7 Brand in the amount of $125 million – which is in addition to its original claims of 8 approximately $15 million for failure to pay GMR and failure to commercialize licensed 9 property, and attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. 172, Gazzola Decl., Ex. A at 3 (Docklight’s Revised 10 Initial Disclosure). 11 Discovery was to be completed by July 10, 2023, and the dispositive motion deadline is 12 set for October 6, 2023. Dkts. 146 and 148.1 Docklight proposes a new discovery deadline of 13 October 6, 2023 – the current deadline for the filing of summary judgment motions. Docklight 14 also represents its production in response to the pre-amendment discovery is nearly complete and
15 that it will substantially complete its promised production in response to new discovery by 16 August 5, 2023. Dkt. 182, Brown Decl., ¶ 2 & Ex. A. Defendants argue this does not allow 17 sufficient time to complete discovery in advance of summary judgment because Docklight’s 18 amendment expands the relevant scope of discovery from Canada-only to worldwide, and from 19 analysis of one sublicense to nine sublicenses. Defendants also contend remaining document 20
21 1 There are currently three dispositive motions pending: (1) Docklight’s motion for partial summary judgment as to all counterclaims and affirmative defenses that survived Docklight’s 22 Rule 12(b)(6) motion (except mitigation of damages); (2) Docklight’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to counterclaims and defenses Defendants added in January 2023; and (3) 23 Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to those later-added claims and defenses. See Dkts. 90, 169, 177. 1 discovery, up to nineteen fact depositions, opening and rebuttal reports from several experts, and 2 expert depositions cannot be completed by October 6, 2023. 4 A court’s scheduling order can be modified “for good cause and with the judge’s
5 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “The good cause standard ‘primarily considers the diligence 6 of the party seeking amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot 7 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’” Wild Fish 8 Conservancy v. Cooke Aquaculture Pac., LLC, 2019 WL 1755306, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 9 2019) (quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). 10 Docklight does not dispute its amendment altered the scope of the lawsuit to encompass 11 its worldwide activity (adding a new claim of $125 million and eight sublicense agreements) but 12 argues the expansion is not significant because non-Canadian damages are only 40% of 13 requested damages (Dkt. 181 at 6) and because five of Docklight’s contracts account for only 14 10% of damages (Dkt. 183, ¶ 2). However, these are still vast figures: 40% of Docklight’s
15 additional demand is $50 million, and 10% is $12.5 million—virtually the total amount of 16 damages claimed by Docklight before the filing of its Third Amended Complaint. Also prior to 17 the filing of the Third Amended Complaint, the only relevant sublicense was the sublicense 18 between High Park and Docklight. Now there are eight additional contractual relationship and 19 parties – some of whom are international (see Dkt. 172, at 8, Ex. A). Even if five of those 20 contracts apparently only made up 10% of Docklight’s revenue, this does not reduce the need for 21 additional discovery into those five separate relationships. 22 Additionally, Docklight agrees the Court should impose a new discovery deadline. 23 However, Docklight’s proposal of a new discovery deadline for the same day as the filing of 1 dispositive motions does not allow sufficient time for all parties to prepare any remaining 2 dispositive motions after discovery is closed with the benefit of depositions and expert rebuttal 3 reports. 4 Each party disputes the other’s diligence in completing the pre-amendment discovery in a
5 timely manner. At the time the Court granted Docklight leave to amend, it was assumed any new 6 discovery related to Docklight’s claims could “be completed at approximately the same time as 7 the remaining outstanding discovery.” Dkt. 157 at 7. While the parties argue who is at fault, it is 8 clear this is no longer true – no depositions have been scheduled, the parties are still conferring 9 about the scope of document discovery, and documents responsive to pre-amendment requests 10 and post-amendment requests are now promised for August 5, 2023. Further discovery related to 11 Docklight’s new claim (eight new third-party sublicensees and a damage claim of $125 million) 12 has barely begun. See, e.g., Dkt. 185, Gazzola Decl. ¶ 6. Given that Docklight’s new claims 13 make the performance of Docklight’s international sublicensees relevant (Docklight claims 14 damages for loss of those sublicenses through 2044), it is highly unlikely Defendants could
15 obtain third-party discovery prior to the proposed discovery deadline (or that they could 16 reasonably have obtained it between the June 20th supplemental disclosures and the July 10th 17 discovery deadline). 18 The Court finds good cause to grant Defendants’ proposed extension of the trial date and 19 pretrial deadlines. Docklight’s amendment expands the scope of relevant discovery from 20 Canada-only to worldwide, from analysis of one sublicense to nine sublicenses, and $125 million 21 in newly claimed damages. Defendants will be prejudiced if they cannot complete discovery into 22 the sales, marketing, expenses, and financials of Docklight and its third-party sublicensees 23 world-wide sufficiently in advance of summary judgment. It is highly unlikely that the remaining 1 document discovery, anticipated to include up to nineteen fact depositions, opening and rebuttal 2 reports from several experts, and expert depositions, can be completed by Docklight’s proposed 3 deadline of October 6, 2023 (when dispositive motions are due). The parties should have 4 sufficient opportunity to complete expert depositions and to incorporate these depositions, if
5 desired, in their dispositive motions. Extending the dispositive motions deadline without 6 extending the trial date also does not accommodate the Court’s administration of its docket. 7 Also, Docklight has not shown how it will be prejudiced by the six-month extension while 8 Defendants will be prejudiced if they are not allowed reasonable time to defend against the new 9 claim. See, e.g., FMC Corp. v. Vendo Co., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1050 (E.D. Cal. 2002) 10 (granting extension where nonmoving party did “not demonstrate how a delay of a few months 11 will prejudice them”); See also, Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Burwell, 12 2016 WL 10226025, at *15 (D.N.M. Sept. 16, 2016) (granting defendants’ request to extend 13 discovery schedule and trial date by four months after plaintiff doubled the amount of damages 14 sought based on “new elements” that were “neither itemized nor quantified until days before the
15 discovery deadline”). 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that trial in this matter is now set for August 19, 20242 17 and the following pretrial deadlines are now in effect:
19 All motions related to discovery filed by December 20, 2023
20 Fact discovery completed by January 10, 2024
21 Disclosure of expert testimony FRCP 26(a)(2) January 31, 2024
22 Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony FRCP 26(a)(2) February 21, 2024
23 2 Defendants requested a new trial date of August 5, 2024, but the Court is not available on that date. 1 Dispositive motions filed by April 4, 2024 2 Motions challenging expert witness testimony April 4, 2024 3 Settlement conference (if requested per LCR 39.1) no later April 25, 2024 4 than Mediation (if requested per LCR 39.1) no later than May 30, 2024 5 All motions in limine must be filed by July 8, 2024 6 Agreed LCR 16.1 Pretrial Order due July 15, 2024 7 Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, proposed jury July 22, 2024 8 instructions, deposition designation, and exhibit lists (Counsel are to confer and indicate which exhibits are 9 agreed to) by Pretrial Conference at 9:30 a.m. August 5, 2024 10 Jury Trial – 7 Days August 19, 2024
11 DATED this 26th day of July, 2023. 12 A 13 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA 14 United States Magistrate Judge
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23