Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. VMware, Inc.

Filing 105

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 102 Discovery Letter Brief. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD., Case No. 15-cv-01414-HSG (DMR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL v. 9 10 VMWARE, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 102 Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 The fact discovery cut-off in this matter was April 29, 2016. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 13 37-3, “no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery 14 cut-off.” At the parties’ joint request, the court extended the motion to compel deadline to May 15 20, 2016. [Docket No. 97.] On June 9, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter in which 16 Defendant VMware, Inc. moves to compel Plaintiff Phoenix Technologies Ltd. (“Phoenix”) to 17 supplement four interrogatory responses. [Docket No. 102.] VMWare’s motion is thus three 18 weeks late. 19 VMWare asserts that it agreed not to raise Phoenix’s allegedly deficient interrogatory 20 responses by the May 20, 2016 extended deadline based on Phoenix’s representation that it would 21 supplement its responses. Phoenix did supplement its responses, but VMWare believes they are 22 still deficient. By deciding to postpone taking action, especially after receiving a two-week 23 extension, VMWare assumed the risk that the court would deny any late-filed motion as untimely. 24 VMWare’s motion is denied as untimely. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: June 16, 2016 ______________________________________ Donna M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge

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?