1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Gearhead Productions, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02331 KJM JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Gearhead Outfitters, Inc., 1S Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Gearhead Outfitters (defendant) seeks a two-month continuance of all pre-trial 18 | and discovery dates set forth in the court’s modified Scheduling Order. Plaintiff Gearhead 19 | Production (plaintiff) opposes the motion, arguing defendant has not shown good cause and has 20 | not been diligent. The court grants the motion. 21] I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff filed this action in 2023, alleging trademark infringement. See generally First 23 | Am. Compl., ECF No. 11. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in December 2023. See ECF 24 | No. 14. The court issued the scheduling order on August 8, 2024, and set the fact discovery 25 | deadline for December 20, 2024. Min. for Sch. Conf., ECF No. 28. On November 4, 2024, 26 | plaintiff moved to continue all pre-trial and discovery deadlines for four months. ECF No. 34. 27 | The court granted the motion in part and extended all pre-trial and discovery deadlines for two 28 | months. See Order (Dec. 18, 2024), ECF No. 41. On January 30, 2025, defendant filed an ex

1 parte motion (Mot.) to extend all pre-trial and discovery deadlines by two months. ECF No. 49. 2 The matter is briefed and is submitted. See Opp’n, ECF No. 52. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Parties can only modify a scheduling order upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 16(b). “The good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the 6 amendment.” Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC,

(9th Cir. 2023) (internal 7 marks and citations omitted). “Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party 8 opposing the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion, the focus of the 9 inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification.”

(internal marks and 10 citations omitted). 11 III. ANALYSIS 12 Defendant’s central argument is that plaintiff tardily raised complaints about defendant’s 13 responses to document requests on January 9, 2025, see Mot. at 3, and propounded new document 14 requests on January 20, 2025, Mot. Lane Decl. ¶ 11, making it difficult for defendant to meet the 15 February 20, 2025, fact discovery deadline. As defendant acknowledges, plaintiff has agreed to 16 extend the fact discovery deadline to respond to its requests. See

Defendant argues it needs 17 the expert disclosure, rebuttal expert witnesses, expert discovery, and dispositive motion 18 deadlines extended as well so that it can “secure amended responses and responsive documents 19 from plaintiff that remain outstanding.”

The court, however, is at least partially persuaded by 20 plaintiff’s argument that defendant appears to have caused its own “time crunch” and needs to 21 stop relying on ex parte motions to this court for scheduling extensions as a bail out. See Opp’n 22 at 5. Nevertheless, the court finds good cause to allow defendant one more continuance. 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 For the reasons stated above, the court grants defendant’s motion for a continuance. The 25 discovery and pre-trial deadlines are reset as follows: 26  Fact discovery to be completed by April 25, 2025. 27  Expert disclosures to be completed by June 14, 2025. 28  Rebuttal expert witnesses to be exchanged by July 14, 2025. ] e All expert discovery to be completed by August 18, 2025. 2 e All dispositive motions, except for motions for continuances, temporary 3 restraining orders or other emergency applications, to be filed by October 20, 4 2025. 5 This resolves ECF No. 49. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED 7 | DATED: February 5, 2025. oUt 8 = 4 Y ees STATES DISTRICT JUDGE