Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc. et al
Filing
143
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS 134 AND MOTION TO SEAL 135 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 06/04/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT
5
NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA
6
7
FO
ORTINET, INC.,
I
Case No. 1
13-cv-05831
1-EMC (DM
MR)
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
SO
OPHOS, INC et al.,
C.,
s.
Defendants
ORDER D
DENYING M
MOTION F
FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND INFRINGE
D
EMENT
CONTENT
TIONS AND MOTION TO
D
N
SEAL WIT
THOUT PR
REJUDICE
Re: Dkt. N 134, 135
Nos.
5
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Fortinet has filed a motion for leave to ame its infrin
l
end
ngement cont
tentions and a related
d
mo
otion to seal. [Docket No 134, 135.] The moti has been referred to t undersig
os.
ion
n
the
gned.
14
In the first motion, Fortinet des
f
scribes the pa
arties’ effort to meet an confer abo
ts
nd
out
15
For
rtinet’s prop
posed amend
dments, and notes that So
n
ophos stated on May 14 2015: “We agree that
d,
4,
e
16
it makes sense to allow som limited am
m
me
mendments to [the] infri
ingement co
ontentions no that both
ow
17
sid have had the benefit of additional discovery.” Fortinet al states tha its motion is
des
o
l
”
lso
at
n
18
“po
otentially [un
n]opposed.” However, because Sop
b
phos did not respond in a timely fash
hion to
19
For
rtinet’s prop
posed amend infringem charts, Fortinet file its motion
ded
ment
ed
n.
20
Fortinet’s motions are denied without prej
a
w
judice. The parties are directed to m and
e
meet
21
con immediately, in pers or by tel
nfer
son
lephone, abo Fortinet’s proposed a
out
amended inf
fringement
22
con
ntentions. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute w
f
o
eir
without judic intervent
cial
tion, the
23
par
rties shall fil a joint disc
le
covery letter of no more than eight pages on an remaining disputes
r
e
t
ny
g
24
by June 11, 20 followin this court’s standing o
015,
ng
order on disc
covery dispu
utes. See Do
ocket No. 78
8.
25
The court will then schedule a hearing on any joint discovery l
t
letter if nece
essary.
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: June 4, 2015
______
__________
___________
__________
______
Donna M. Ryu
a
United States Mag
d
gistrate Judge
e
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?