Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc. et al

Filing 183

ORDER RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT 176 ; ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 07/20/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FORTINET, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-05831-EMC (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT;
ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER

9
10

SOPHOS, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 170, 176

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

The parties have filed the joint discovery status report which the court previously ordered
the parties to file. See Docket Nos. 170, 176.
In the letter, Fortinet contends that the discovery produced by Sophos since the court’s

16

previous order justifies a “targeted re-opening of fact discovery for Fortinet only, for the sole and

17

limited purpose of discovery related to information produced pursuant to [Docket No. 170].”

18

Docket No. 176 at 2-3. Specifically, Fortinet seeks additional depositions and additional written

19

discovery, and believes it will take eight weeks to complete this discovery. Sophos is amenable to

20

allowing Fortinet to conduct some further depositions, but believes additional written discovery is

21

inappropriate. Sophos also does not agree that Fortinet’s additional discovery period should last

22

eight weeks, as that “will make the existing case deadlines unworkable relative to such things as

23

expert discovery and dispositive motions filing dates.” Docket No. 176 at 5.

24

The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the scope and timing of discovery

25

beyond the fact discovery cutoff. The parties may reach an agreement on this matter without court

26

intervention so long as that agreement does not affect the remaining case management deadlines,

27

e.g., the last day to hear dispositive motions or the pretrial conference. However, the parties must

28

bring a motion before Judge Chen if they are seeking an extension of fact discovery that will affect

1
2
3
4
5

tho case man
ose
nagement deadlines.
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: July 20, 2015
,
___ _________
_
___________
__________
________
Donna M. Ryu
Un
nited States M
Magistrate J
Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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