I quoted the current order which stated no such schedule was in place and that CIG were asking to delay something that wasn't going to happen until it was.
As for there being no such thing...that same quote refers to it.
As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time.
The scheduling order you say doesn't exist has not yet been issued therefore CIG are under no current obligation to respond.
If CIG are seeking to simply delay the process or drag it out, then frankly it doesn't matter what the Judge has already ruled. They'll file for the PO...again...it'll be turned down...again...but CIG would have gotten the delay they want.
Unless there is a legal reason why they cannot refile...and there doesn't seem to be one...there seems to be little reason for them no to do so.
Here is the order itself. Please read it in full, and explain to me what exactly it is you are having issues with.
https://www.docdroid.net/tx3rLrT/031127978036.pdfUpon further review, the Court notes that Judge Gee issued an Initial Standing Order on December 13, 2017. Paragraph 4.b. of that order addresses
discovery before and after the scheduling conference. Specifically, the order provides that “it is advisable for counsel to begin to conduct discovery actively before the Scheduling Conference.” Although early discovery is strongly encouraged, Judge Gee’s policy is not to require the parties to participate in discovery until a scheduling order has issued. As no scheduling order has been issued in this case as of now, defendants are not required to respond to discovery at this time. The motion for stay, therefore, is moot and denied on that basis.
There is no "scheduling order" in the case.
Scheduling Order:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_16Discovery Plan:
https://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/filing-a-lawsuit-the-discovery-process.htmlBOTH parties already agreed on a discovery plan. It was filed on Feb 27th
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23222744/Crytek_GmbH_v_Cloud_Imperium_Games_Corp_et_alThe next step would have been the "scheduling conference" (by both parties, similar to the discovery plan), which would then be filed so that the judge can issue a "scheduling order".
CryTek decided to start the discovery process early, no doubt due to the volume of material that would require.
CIG went along with it.
Both parties came up with the discovery plan which they filed on Feb 27th.
From the CryTek filing of Mar 27th, we find out why CIG objected to start discovery. One of those reasons what that instead of complying with discovery - as per the plan - they decided to start settlement talks. That was also premature and out of schedule. So Crytek rejected it - and opted to just move on to discovery.
CIG filed the PO object to discovery; instead opting to wait for the ruling on the MtD.
Because the judge does not require (it's a suggestion) parties to start discovery early|ahead of a scheduling order, the PO was moot as CIG wasn't required to comply with discovery anyway.
That was a 6 week delay - while waiting for the ruling. And that was time that they could have taken to do the scheduling conference and get it done - just like they did the discovery plan. Then submit that so the judge can issue a scheduling order, thus kicking off discovery.
Her ruling doesn't give CIG
**any** opportunity to file another PO. Now they have to do the scheduling conference; submit it to the judge for her scheduling order.
Once that's acknowledged, they have to start discovery. With a scheduling order in place, if they attempt to file another PO, it will again get denied because there would already be a discovery plan, a scheduling conference, and a scheduling order from the judge.
There is NO basis in law for the discovery process to stop because a decision on an MtD is pending. If that were the case, the judge would have ruled on the MtD by now, instead of dealing with the bullshit (including oral arguments btw) of this PO. And Crytek's motion opposing it, lays out case law for this. And that didn't come into play because the PO was moot anyway, and the judge didn't even need to get into all that.
Again, all CIG did was buy themselves a 6 week delay. That's their "win" - and they've now used it up. They could have gone ahead with the scheduling conference (which was started, hence the discovery dispute), then file the PO thereafter if the judge hadn't ruled on the MtD by that time. Basically, they could have taken the 6 week delay before or after. Crytek's "win" is that now they get to go to discovery, though later rather than sooner. And CIG can't prevent or delay it now - given this order.
These tactics are all part of frustrating your opposition. And it's all perfectly legal. Until the judge gets pissed for wasting the court's time, while backing up the court dockets as a result.
And the ruling on the MtD is going to be hilarious because I fully expect the judge to deny it. In fact, CIG have got to know that it won't survive that motion or the judge, like how she disregarded Crytek's response to the PO because it was moot, would have also disregarded the PO as moot, while ruling on the MtD and sending everyone on their way. That she opted to toss the PO, while not ruling on the MtD - but telling them to go get their discovery act in gear - is a clear signal that the MtD ruling is coming soon, and that it's not going to end the case.
