Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Sequenom, Inc. et al

Filing 55

ORDER DENYING VERINATA'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 12-00865 SI

VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING VERINATA’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiffs,
v.

14

SEQUENOM, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

/

16
17

Currently before the Court is plaintiff Verinata’s motion to compel defendant Sequenom to “(1)

18

promptly supplement its interrogatory responses, (2) promptly produce documents responsive to

19

Verinata’s RPD Nos. 1-4 on a rolling basis and log all documents it is withholding based on privilege

20

or protective order, and (3) comply with its discovery obligations in good faith going forward.” Docket

21

No. 53. Verinata did not submit a joint statement, as required by the Court’s Standing Order, but instead

22

filed a separate statement two business days after asking Sequenom to provide its portion of a joint

23

statement addressing Verinata’s issues by the close of the next business day. See Objection, Docket No.

24

54. The Court sees no current urgency in the issues raised by Verinata that would obviate the need to

25

comply with the Court’s Standing Order. Likewise, the record does not demonstrate that Sequenom was

26

unwilling to provide a response in support of a joint letter within a reasonable response time in light of

27

the context of the dispute.1

28
1

For example, depending on the context – including the complexity of the issues and whether
there are exigent circumstances requiring a shorter response time – four to five business days represents
a reasonable amount of time to provide a statement in support of a joint discovery letter.

1

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Verinata’s request for relief without prejudice.

2

If the issues raised remain unresolved after the parties meet and confer, consistent with the Court’s

3

Standing Order, Verinata may file a joint submission addressing the outstanding disputes. If Sequenom

4

refuses to meet and confer and/or provide a response in support of a joint statement within a reasonable

5

amount of time, Verinata may file, also consistent with the Court’s Standing Order, an individual

6

statement of two pages or less.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: October 15, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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