Procongps, Inc. v. Star Sensor Technology, LLC., et al.,

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SKYPATROL'S REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PROCONGPS, INC.,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 11-3975 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
SKYPATROL’S REQUEST FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

v.
STAR SENSOR, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

/

13
14

Defendant Skypatrol LLC has filed a letter brief requesting “limited” expedited discovery.

15

Skypatrol asserts that it should be permitted to expedite its defense of this litigation because plaintiff

16

has been telling Skypatrol’s customers that Skypatrol is going out of business as a result of this

17

litigation. Skypatrol seeks a “limited, discrete set of documents” including (1) documents relating to

18

any litigation, other than this case, involving the patents-in-suit, (2) documents relating to any license

19

to the patents-in-suit, and (2) documents relating to the validity or invalidity of the patents-in-suit.

20

Plaintiff opposes the request on both procedural and substantive grounds. Plaintiff asserts, inter

21

alia, that defendant did not meet and confer prior to filing the letter brief, and that defendant has not

22

shown good cause for expedited discovery. Plaintiff contends that allowing expedited discovery would

23

permit defendant to circumvent the local rules and discovery procedures, and that the requested

24

discovery would be extremely time-consuming and burdensome for plaintiff.

25

The Court finds that defendant has not demonstrated good cause for deviating from the normal

26

discovery schedule. Further, the discovery sought is not limited, but rather broadly seeks documents

27

relating to any litigation involving the patents-in-suit; documents relating to any license to the patents-

28

in-suit; and documents relating to the validity or invalidity of the patents-in-suit, which would include,

1

at a minimum, prior art and the prosecution and reexamination files. Accordingly, defendant’s request

2

is DENIED. Docket No. 24.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: October 3, 2011, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2