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.

Wolf v. Schadegg

United States District Court, D. Colorado

April 22, 2016

DAVID J. WOLF, an individual, and WOLF AUTO CENTER STERLING LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL SCHADEGG, an individual, SHAWN COCHRAN, an individual, JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 3, and XYZ CORPORATION, Defendants.

ORDER

KRISTEN L. MIX, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order [#45][1] (“Motion to Extend”) and Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Complaint and Add Additional Parties [#47] (“Motion for Reconsideration”). Defendants filed a Response [#49] in opposition to the Motion to Extend and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [#53]. Defendants also filed a Response [#56] in opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration, but Plaintiffs have not yet filed a Reply.[2]The Court has reviewed the Motions, Responses, Reply, the entire case file, and the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Extend [#45] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Motion for Reconsideration [#47] is GRANTED.

I. Discussion

On May 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this action alleging a claim against Defendants for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, as well as several state law claims for theft of trade secret information, civil theft, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage. Compl. [#1] ¶¶ 53-120. On September 17, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order [#24] which set, in relevant part, the following case deadlines:

• Joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings: November 18, 2015
• Designation of affirmative experts: March 20, 2016
• Designation of rebuttal experts: May 5, 2016
• Discovery cut-off: May 20, 2016
• Dispositive motion deadline: July 12, 2016

See Scheduling Order [#24] at 8-9. The Court subsequently extended the deadline for the amendment of pleadings to December 30, 2015. Minute Order [#30].

On December 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend Complaint [#33], which the Court denied on December 30, 2015, for failure to comply with the conferral requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a). Minute Order [#34]. Plaintiffs filed a renewed Motion to Amend three weeks later seeking to amend the Complaint. See Motion [#36]. The Court denied this Motion because Plaintiffs had provided “no explanation for waiting twenty-two days to file the . . . Motion [#36] after the Court denied the original Motion to Amend Complaint [#33].” Order [#44] at 3. Subsequently, the Court also denied a pending Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. Order [#46].

On March 17, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the present Motion to Extend [#45], and filed the Motion for Reconsideration [#47] on April 1, 2016.

A. Motion to Extend

Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the aforementioned deadlines for the designation of affirmative experts, the designation of rebuttal experts, and discovery cut-off by sixty days, and request that the Court extend the deadline for dispositive motions by thirty days. Motion to Extend [#45] at 2-3. Plaintiffs contend that they have good cause for amending the scheduling order to extend these deadlines, and argue that they have been diligent in responding to and making discovery requests throughout the course of this action. Motion to Extend [#45] at 4-6. However, they contend that not only does the complexity of this case require more time to assemble and collect the requisite documents, but note that the majority of all discovery has been conducted “in the context of a case where the pleadings are still incomplete” given that Defendants filed their Answer [#50] only recently, on April 4, 2016. Id. at 4. With respect to the deadline for designation of experts, Plaintiffs argue that they have “attempted through discovery . . . to gather sufficient ...


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.