TChutima, Inc., et al. v. Louis Abin

TChutima · United States District Court for the District of Nevada · January 13, 2026 · No. 2:24-cv-01130-JAD-NJK

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada grants Defendant Louis Abin’s motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking or completing identified depositions. The court finds sufficient diligence and little prejudice or disruption, and sets a limited discovery cutoff of February 25, 2026, while noting that the existing dispositive-motion deadline remains March 27, 2026.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Writing for the Court
Nancy J. Koppe
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Decision date
January 13, 2026
Docket number
2:24-cv-01130-JAD-NJK
Procedural posture
Defendant moved to reopen discovery after the discovery cutoff had expired. Plaintiffs opposed the motion. The court resolved the motion without a hearing.
Standard of review
A request to modify a scheduling-order deadline requires good cause, measured by whether the deadline could not reasonably be met despite diligence. When relief is sought after the deadline has expired, the movant must also show excusable neglect, evaluated through prejudice, length and impact of delay, reason for delay, and good faith.
Precedential value
Unpublished district-court order; precedential status is not established in the source.
Disposition
other

Topics

discovery disputecivil proceduretrademark lawbreach of contract

Practice areas

civil procedurediscoverytrademark lawcontracts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether defendant established good cause and diligence sufficient to modify the scheduling order and reopen discovery after the discovery cutoff.
  2. Whether defendant established excusable neglect for seeking relief after the discovery deadline expired.
  3. Whether the court should reopen discovery for the limited purpose of taking or completing the identified depositions.

Holdings

  1. The court held that defendant demonstrated sufficient diligence and good cause to reopen discovery in the unique circumstances of the case.
  2. The court held that the circumstances supported excusable neglect and favored reopening discovery.

Key quotations

A request to extend deadlines in the scheduling order must be premised on a showing of good cause. (at 1)
The diligence obligation is ongoing. (at 1)
The showing of diligence is measured by the conduct displayed throughout the entire period of time already allowed. (at 1)
carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of relief. (at 1)
In the unique circumstances of this case, the instant motion was brought with sufficient diligence. (at 2)

Factual background

The case concerns allegedly unauthorized use of the Lotus of Siam trademark and an alleged breach of a trademark-license agreement. Defendant had noticed Penny Chutima's deposition, begun Saipin Chutima's deposition, and sought TChutima Inc.'s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, but the discovery was not completed before the May 8, 2025 cutoff. Discovery was disrupted by litigation concerning Bua Group's ownership, party substitution, and attorney disqualification; after Lou Abin was substituted as the derivative defendant, he sought to reopen discovery.

Procedural history

The discovery cutoff expired on May 8, 2025, before several depositions and related discovery were completed. After disputes concerning ownership of former defendant Bua Group, party substitution, and attorney disqualification were resolved, Lou Abin moved to reopen discovery. The court granted the motion for the limited purpose of taking or completing identified depositions and set a limited discovery cutoff of February 25, 2026.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…