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)

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