Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Entrata, Inc. v. Yardi Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

November 17, 2017

ENTRATA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, Defendant.

          Clark Waddoups, District Judge

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          PAUL M. WARNER, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         District Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).[1] Before the court are Yardi Systems, Inc.'s (“Defendant”) expedited motion to modify the scheduling order and Entrata, Inc.' (“Plaintiff”) five short form discovery motions. The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will determine the motions on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).

         As an initial matter, the court notes that there has been a great deal of irregular briefing on the motions before the court. For example, Plaintiff has filed several replies on short form discovery motions, which is expressly not contemplated or allowed by the court's short form discovery motion rule, see DUCivR 37-1; Defendant has filed an opposition memorandum on a short form discovery motion far in excess of the 500-word limit required by the court's short form discovery motion rule, see id.; and Plaintiff has filed a sur-reply on a motion without leave of court. While the court will consider that irregular briefing in this instance, any future motion practice in this case must adhere strictly to the applicable rules. Counsel for both parties are admonished to read and follow the rules pertaining to short form discovery motions and briefing. Any future briefing filed in violation of any applicable rules will be stricken and not considered by the court.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Defendant's Expedited Motion to Modify Scheduling Order

         In this motion, Defendant seeks a six-month extension of all unexpired deadlines in the schedule governing this case. Plaintiff opposes any extension of those deadlines, except an extension to allow depositions to occur through December 20, 2017.

         Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). “In practice, this standard requires the movant to show the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite [the movant's] diligent efforts.” Gorsuch, Ltd., B.C. v. Wells Fargo Nat. Bank Ass'n, 771 F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014) (quotations and citation omitted) (alteration in original).

         “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) gives district courts wide latitude in entering scheduling orders.” Burks v. Okla. Pub. Co., 81 F.3d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1996). The Tenth Circuit reviews a district court's decision on a motion to modify a scheduling order for abuse of discretion. See id.

         As is reflected in both parties' written submissions on this motion, the discovery requested and produced to date in this case is substantial. Furthermore, it appears that substantial discovery still remains in this case, as both parties agree that discovery is not fully complete. Indeed, by Plaintiff's own admission, it is still continuing to produce documents. The same holds true for Defendant. Additionally, and again as admitted by Plaintiff, multiple depositions are scheduled to take place after expiration of the current fact discovery deadline.

         Even after considering Plaintiff's arguments, the court cannot say that Defendant has not been diligent in satisfying its discovery obligations. The court is likewise unpersuaded by Plaintiff's arguments concerning prejudice resulting from granting Defendant's requested extension of the unexpired deadlines in this case. Accordingly, and given the circumstances described above, the court concludes that good cause exists for granting Defendant's requested extension.

         This motion is granted, and the schedule in this case is hereby amended as follows:

Fact Discovery Cutoff:

05/21/2018

Expert Report (party bearing burden of proof):

06/21/2018

Expert Counter Report:

07/26/2018

Expert Reply Report:

08/16/2018

Expert Discovery Cutoff:

09/07/2018

Dispositive Motions:

09/14/2018

Trial Readiness: December

2018

         II. Plaintiff's Short ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.