Centrify Corporation v. Quest Software, Inc.

Filing 99

DISCOVERY ORDER re 98 Letter filed by Centrify Corporation. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/24/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 Northern District of California 6 7 CENTRIFY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 8 v. No. C 10-3873 CW (MEJ) DISCOVERY ORDER RE: CUSTOMER INFORMATION 9 QUEST SOFTWARE, INC., 10 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter regarding Centrify’s 14 request to compel Quest to identify customers who use technology that, according to Centrify, 15 infringes the ‘005 patent at issue. Dkt. No. 98. In the letter, the parties refer to Quest’s Motion to 16 Enforce Court Orders and Strike Centrify’s Amended Infringement Contentions. Dkt. No. 90. Quest 17 maintains that the Court should not determine the present dispute until after it resolves Quest’s 18 motion to strike. However, on October 5, 2011, the Court denied Quest’s motion without prejudice 19 and ordered the parties to comply with the undersigned’s discovery standing order. As the parties 20 have not met and conferred and filed a joint letter regarding Quest’s motion to strike, it is not 21 presently before the Court. Therefore, the Court finds it prudent to defer any ruling on the present 22 discovery dispute until after the motion to strike has been resolved.. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: October 24, 2011 26 27 28 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief 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?