Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING DEFENDANTS 136 MOTION TO CHANGE THE COORDINATED CASE SCHEDULE. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
DROPBOX INC., et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO CHANGE THE
COORDINATED CASE SCHEDULE
Re: Dkt. No. 136
Pending before the Court is Defendant Dropbox, Inc.’s motion to change the coordinated
case schedule. Dkt. No. 136 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (“Synchronoss”)
has filed its opposition. Dkt. No. 138. Dropbox requests that the Court enter a revised schedule
for the Markman process to provide time for Synchronoss to supplement its infringement
contentions by September 8, 2017. Mot. at 5. Dropbox argues that “[c]ourts in this district
regularly delay claim construction deadlines where a plaintiff has failed to timely provide non-
deficient infringement contentions.” Id. at 4. There has been no such showing here, nor has
Dropbox even raised this issue before the assigned discovery magistrate judge. No good cause
having been shown to change the coordinated case schedule, Dropbox’s motion is DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
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?