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)

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