Case Information
NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EPSON AMERICA, INC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00222-FWS-DFM Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF EPSON AMERICA, INC.’S EX PARTE v. APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER MODIFYING THE GLOBAL AIPTEK INC. d/b/a GAC SCHEDULING ORDER [115] TECHNOLOGY GROUP,
Defendant. /// /// ///
The court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff Epson America, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application and Request for Order Modifying the Scheduling Order, (Dkt. 115 (“Application”)), filed by Plaintiff Epson America, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) on May 12, 2025. The court has also reviewed and considered Defendant Global Aiptek Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff Epson America, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application and Request for Order Modifying the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 116 (“Opposition”)), filed by Defendant Global Aiptek Inc. (“Defendant”) on May 13, 2025.
In addition, the court has reviewed the files and records of the case, including the Joint Rule 26(f) Report, (Dkt. 18), and the October 31, 2024, Operative Scheduling Order, (Dkt. 70 (“Scheduling Order”)), and the applicable law, including Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Casualty Co. , 883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995), Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal 2013), In re Intermagnetics Am., Inc. , 101 B.R. 191 (C.D. Cal. 1989), Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. , 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co. , 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002), and In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig. , 715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013).
Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court finds Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing in the Application, both as to satisfying the ex parte standard and on the merits. Accordingly, the Application is GRANTED IN SUBSTANTIAL PART , and the court MODIFIES the Scheduling Order to read as follows (with changes indicated by italics): [1]
EVENT
DATE Check one: [x] Jury Trial or [ ] Bench Trial First Day: 4/28/2026 Tuesday at 8:00 a.m. Parties’ Estimated Trial Length 4 days Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Motions in Limine 3/5/2026 Thursday at 8:30 a.m. Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings /Add Parties 6/29/2023 Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off 8/1/2025 Expert Disclosure (Initial) 9/11/2025 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) 9/25/2025 Expert Discovery Cut-Off 10/9/2025 Last Date to Hear Motions Thursday at 10:00 a.m. 12/4/2025 • Motion for Summary Judgment due at least 6 weeks before hearing • All other motions due at least 4 weeks before hearing • Opposition due 2 weeks after Motion is filed • Reply due 1 week after Opposition is filed
modification,” and “[i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end”), and Zivkovic , 302 F.3d at 1087 (stating “[t]he pretrial schedule may be modified if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension,” and “[i]f the party seeking the modification was not diligent, the inquiry should end and the motion to modify should not be granted”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Parties should plan accordingly. Also, to the extent this Order does not encompass a request made in the Stipulation, the court, based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, and within its discretion, has denied and/or modified that request. See Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp. , 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The trial court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket and calendar.”).
1 Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference [L.R. 16-15] 12/18/2025 [ ] 1. Magistrate Judge (with Court approval) 2 [ ] 2. Court’s Mediation Panel 3 [x] 3. Private Mediation 4
Trial Filings (first round) 1/8/2026 5 • Motions in Limine with Proposed Orders • Daubert Motions with Proposed Orders [2]
6 • Memoranda of Contentions of Fact and Law [L.R. 16-4] 7 • Witness Lists [L.R. 16-5] • Joint Exhibit List [L.R. 16-6.1]
8 • Joint Status Report Regarding Settlement 9 • Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [L.R. 52] (bench trial only)
10 • Declarations containing Direct Testimony, if ordered (bench 11 trial only) • Affirmative Deposition Designation(s)
12 13 1/15/2026
Trial Filings (second round) • Oppositions to Motions in Limine
14 • Oppositions to Daubert Motions [3] • Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order [L.R. 16-7] • Joint/Agreed Proposed Jury Instructions (jury trial only) • Disputed Proposed Jury Instructions (jury trial only) • Joint Proposed Verdict Forms (jury trial only) • Joint Proposed Statement of the Case (jury trial only) • Proposed Additional Voir Dire Questions, if any (jury trial only) • Evidentiary Objections to Declarations of Direct Testimony (bench trial only) • Objections and Counter Deposition Designation(s) • Objections to Counter Designation(s) and Counter-Counter 1/22/2026 Deposition Designation(s)
IT IS SO ORDERED . Dated: May 15, 2025 ______________________________ Hon. Fred W. Slaughter UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CC: ADR
NOTES
[1] This Order is now the Operative Scheduling Order in this case. Given the record, 23 including the court’s Order Setting Rule 26(f) Scheduling Conference and attached Worksheet, (Dkt. 17), the previous requests for continuances granted in the case, and 24 the Parties’ Joint 26(f) Report, (Dkt. 18), the court again is disinclined to grant 25 additional continuances of the trial date and accompanying dates, absent a strong showing. This strong showing, if any, shall comply with the applicable law, 26 including Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), Johnson , 975 F.2d at 609 (stating “Rule 16(b)’s 27 ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment,” “the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for seeking 28 (Footnote Cont’d on Following Page)
[2] Daubert motions and oppositions to Daubert motions shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length.
[3] Pursuant to this court’s order on pretrial and trial procedures, the parties shall not 27 file replies to the motions in limine. ( See Dkt. 20 at 4 (“Unless the court determines otherwise, counsel shall not file any replies.”).) In addition, unless the court 28 determines otherwise, the parties shall not file replies to any Daubert motions.