Symantec Corporation v. Veeam Software Corporation

Filing 211

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 207 208 210 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 12-0700 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v.

12

VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION,

13

Defendant.

/

14
15

On May 16, 2014, Symantec filed a discovery letter requesting a discovery teleconference, so

16

that the parties could resolve seven discovery disputes. Docket No. 199. The Court held the requested

17

discovery teleconference on May 22, 2014. On May 23, 2014, the Court issued an order resolving the

18

parties’ disputes. Docket No. 204. As part of the order, the Court ordered Veeam to provide Symantec

19

with information disclosing the date each video at issue was filmed and whether the filming location

20

was in the United States by May 27, 2014. Id.

21

On May 29, 2014, Veeam filed a non-joint discovery letter seeking relief from the May 27, 2014

22

deadline. Docket No. 207. In the letter, Veeam states that it would be impossible to comply with the

23

Court’s order by May 27, 2014 and requests that the Court extend the deadline by 30 days. Id. On June

24

2, 2014, Symantec filed a response to Veeam’s discovery letter. Docket No. 210. In its response,

25

Symantec argues that Veeam should have been able to comply with the deadline and requests that the

26

Court enter an order permitted the jury to infer that all the videos were made in the United States after

27

October 22, 2012. Id. However, Symantec does not assert that it would be prejudiced by the Court

28

granting Veeam the requested extension of time.

1

After reviewing the arguments set forth in the parties’ discovery letters, the Court concludes that

2

Veeam has shown good cause to extend the deadline. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Veeam’s

3

request for relief from the Court’s May 23, 2014 order and ORDERS Veeam to provide Symantec with

4

information disclosing the date each video was filmed and whether the filming location was in the

5

United States by June 26, 2014. This Order resolves Docket Nos. 207, 208, 210.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: June 4, 2014

________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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