Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P. et al

Filing 164

ORDER re 160 MOTION to Continue Hearing On Defendants' Motion To Dismiss.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 30, 2010. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2010)

Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Altitude Capital Partners, L.P. et al

Doc. 164

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ALTITUDE CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. and SECURITY RESEARCH HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants. ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING DISCOVERY / Now before the Court is the administrative request submitted by Plaintiff Juniper Networks, Inc. ("Juniper") to continue the adjudication of the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Altitude Capital Partner, L.P. ("Altitude") and Security Research Holdings LLC ("SRH") (collectively, "Defendants"). Juniper contends that the outstanding discovery of nearly 2,600 documents which are the subject of an unresolved discovery dispute may contain relevant information to bolster its opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. In the opposition to Juniper's administrative motion to continue the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Defendants' counsel contends that nothing in the outstanding discovery that would "add to the information that is relevant to the issues pending in the motion to dismiss." (Opp. Br. at 5.) In response to the pending motion to dismiss, Juniper contends that there was a definite and concrete dispute between Juniper and SRH at the time Juniper initiated this declaratory judgment action. Should Defendants' counsel submit a declaration stating under penalty of No. C 09-03449 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

perjury, after review of the outstanding withheld documents, that the subject documents do not contribute any additional information regarding whether there was a definite and concrete dispute between Juniper and SRH at the time Juniper initiated this declaratory judgment action, the Court will deny the administrative motion to continue adjudication on the motion to dismiss. If counsel does not submit such an unequivocal, unconditional declaration by Monday, December 6, 2011, the Court will grant Juniper's administrative request to continue and allow the parties to resolve the discovery dispute prior to adjudicating Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. Regardless, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that the motion to dismiss which has been noticed for hearing on Friday, December 10, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., as briefed is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing date is HEREBY VACATED. The motion will be taken under submission and decided on the papers or, if continuation of the adjudication date is required, the Court shall require supplemental briefing on the limited issue of whether there was a definite and concrete dispute between Juniper and SRH at the time Juniper initiated this declaratory judgment action and shall set a hearing date by further order, if necessary.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 30, 2010 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2