Epson America, Inc. v. Global Aiptek Inc., 8:23-cv-00222

Plaintiff Epson America, Inc. filed an ex parte application to modify the court’s operative scheduling order in a pending civil case against Defendant Global Aiptek Inc. (GAC Technology Group).
The dispute centers around pretrial scheduling and deadlines, including the date for trial and various discovery and filing deadlines.
Epson argued there was good cause to alter the schedule, citing diligence in prosecuting the case and complications that necessitated the changes.
Defendant opposed the modification, contending that Plaintiff had not been diligent or had not met the required standard for amending the scheduling order.
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions, procedural history, the existing Scheduling Order, and relevant federal law.
The court ultimately granted most of Epson’s requested modifications and reset key case deadlines but noted no further continuances would be easily granted absent a strong showing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Modification of Scheduling	Good cause, acted diligently	Insufficient diligence shown	Modification granted in substantial
Order	and schedule cannot be met	and extension not justified	part, new dates set
	under current deadlines
Standard for Ex Parte	Ex parte relief warranted due	Ex parte relief unnecessary or	Plaintiff satisfied ex parte
Application	to urgency and diligence	standard not met	standard; application granted
Requirement of Diligence	Diligent in efforts, setbacks	Plaintiff lacked necessary	Court found sufficient diligence on
	outside their control	diligence for relief	record
Additional Continuances	May need flexibility given	Past extensions already granted	Further extensions unlikely without
	case complexity	and delay should not continue	strong showing of necessity

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (discusses "good cause" standard for modifying scheduling orders and focuses on parties’ diligence)
Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (confirms modification allowed if schedule cannot be met despite the party's diligence)
Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983) (trial courts have inherent power over docket and calendar)