Meta Company v. Zhong et al

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time; denying 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time; denying 25 Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 META COMPANY, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 Case No. 17-cv-03259-EMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO SHORTEN TIME Docket No. 19, 23, 25 ZHANGYI ZHONG, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 13 Plaintiff Meta Company has filed suit against Defendants Dreamworld USA Inc. and 14 Zhangyi Zhong, asserting claims for, inter alia, trade secret misappropriation. On June 17, 2017 15 (a Saturday), Meta filed a motion for a protective order and a motion for expedited discovery. 16 Both motions are currently set for hearing on August 3, 2017, but Meta has asked that they be 17 heard on shortened time. More specifically, Meta asks that the motions be heard on June 29, 18 2017, with the opposition and reply briefs to be filed on June 21 and 23, 2017, respectively. This 19 order addresses only the motions to shorten time. 20 The motions to shorten time are hereby DENIED without prejudice. 21 First, it is not clear that Meta served, or otherwise tried to notify Defendants about, the 22 motions to shorten time (or, for that matter, the underlying motions). 23 Second, the fact that Defendants do not appear to have retained counsel yet is not an 24 excuse. Meta could have reached out to Mr. Zhong as an individual or to a representative of 25 Dreamworld (such as its general counsel). See Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(1) (providing that a motion to 26 shorten time must describe the efforts made by the moving party to obtain a stipulation to the time 27 change). 28 While the Court thus denies the motions to shorten time, it does so without prejudice so 1 that Meta may renew the motions once proper notice and meet-and-confer requirements are met. 2 Meta should reach out to Defendants and meet and confer with them regarding both the requests 3 for shortened time and the underlying motions themselves. The Court expects that a good faith 4 meet and confer will obviate or least narrow the disputes. 5 For the motion for a protective order, the Court advises that, if an agreement cannot be 6 reached, then the parties should identify what specific terms remain in dispute and provide 7 redlined versions of their respective proposed protective orders (comparing their versions to the 8 model protective order approved by this Court). 9 10 discovery requests and not just general descriptions of the discovery sought. This order disposes of Docket Nos. 19, 23, and 25. 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 For the motion for expedited discovery, the Court advises that the parties discuss specific 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 17 Dated: June 19, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?