Mike's Novelties, Inc. v. PIV Enterprises, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MIKE’S NOVELTIES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01309-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR SHORTENED TIME; REQUIRING 12 v. PLAINTIFF TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY 13 PIV ENTERPRISES, INC., THE SCHEDULING ORDER 14 Defendant. ORDER VACATING OCTOBER 1, 2025 HEARING 15 (ECF Nos. 55, 56) 16 SEVEN-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On August 26, 2025, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff PIV Enterprises, Inc. filed a 19 motion to modify the scheduling order with a corresponding application to shorten time to hear 20 the motion. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) PIV’s underlying motion requests that dates for expert 21 disclosure, rebuttal expert disclosure, expert discovery, and dispositive motions be continued. 22 Given the expert disclosure deadline is currently set for September 4, 2025, the Court finds good 23 cause to grant PIV’s application for shortened time. (See also ECF No. 54.) 24 On August 19, 2025, Counsel for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Mike’s 25 Novelties, Inc. (“MNI”) informed counsel for PIV that “MNI would not consider any extension 26 to any of the Scheduling Order dates.” (ECF No. 56-1 at 3.) PIV details its unsuccessful efforts 27 since that telephonic meet and confer conference to obtain a stipulation hear the motion to 1 | informal discovery conference. 2 Given the proffer that MNI intends to oppose PIV’s motion, the Court shall require MNI 3 | to file an opposition or non-opposition to Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order 4 | within seven (7) days. MNI is directed to focus their opposition, if any, on the good cause 5 | standard under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Particularly, their position how 6 | PIV has not shown the requisite due diligence in their timely request for modification of the 7 | scheduling order. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) 8 | (The “good cause” standard “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 9 | amendment,” and “[t]he prejudice to other parties, if any, may be considered, but the focus is on 10 | the moving party’s reason for seeking the modification.”). 11 Alternatively, the parties may submit a stipulation within seven (7) days. 12 At this time, the Court does not foresee a need for a reply brief by Defendant or a 13 | hearing. Should either become necessary, the Court will issue an order requesting such. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The hearing set for October 1, 2025 is VACATED; 16 2. PIV’s application for an order to shorten time for hearing PIV’s motion to modify 17 the scheduling order is GRANTED (ECF No. 56); and 18 3. Within seven (7) days of entry of this order, MNI shall file an opposition or 19 statement of non-opposition to PIV’s motion to modify the scheduling order. 20 Failure to file a timely response shall be construed as a non-opposition. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 ee 23 | Dated: _ August 26, 2025 _ ef ES STANLEY A. BOONE 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28