1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GALDERMA LABORATORIES LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-02879-FLA (SKx)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONSOLIDATED WITH 14 GALDERMA LABORATORIES LP V. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC., 15 CHAD TISCKOS, CASE NO. 2:21-CV- Defendant. 05522 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), a court may consolidate actions involving “a 3 | common question of law or fact” and has “broad discretion under this rule to 4 | consolidate cases pending in the same district.” Jnvs. Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for 5 | Cent. Dist. of California,

, 777 (9th Cir. 1989); see also In re Adams 6 | Apple, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1987) (courts “may consolidate cases sua 7 | sponte’) (citation omitted). “To determine whether to consolidate, a court weighs the 8 | interest in judicial convenience against the potential for delay, confusion, and 9 | prejudice caused by consolidation.” Paxonet Commc’ns, Inc. v. TranSwitch Corp., 10 |

(N.D. Cal. 2003) (citation omitted). 11 Here, it appears the benefits of judicial economy and convenience from 12 | consolidating this action with Galderma Laboratories LP v. Chad Tisckos, Case No. 13 || 2:21-cv-05522-FLA (SKx) (“Tisckos Action”) outweighs any potential for delay, 14 | confusion, and prejudice, as the actions have overlapping parties and seem to involve 15 | the same issues regarding alleged trade secret theft. Accordingly, the parties are 16 | ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing only, by October 18, 2024, why this 17 || action should not be consolidated with the Tisckos Action. Responses shall be limited 18 || to five (5) pages in length. 19 In the event a notice of settlement is filed in this action on or before October 18, 20 | 2024, this Order shall be discharged, and no response shall be required. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 | Dated: September 19, 2024 5 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 26 27 28