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