Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc

Filing 139

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

DROPBOX INC., et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-00119-HSG
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

12
13

case schedule. Dkt. No. 136 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (“Synchronoss”)

14

has filed its opposition. Dkt. No. 138. Dropbox requests that the Court enter a revised schedule

15

for the Markman process to provide time for Synchronoss to supplement its infringement

16

contentions by September 8, 2017. Mot. at 5. Dropbox argues that “[c]ourts in this district

17

regularly delay claim construction deadlines where a plaintiff has failed to timely provide non-

18

deficient infringement contentions.” Id. at 4. There has been no such showing here, nor has

19

Dropbox even raised this issue before the assigned discovery magistrate judge. No good cause

20

having been shown to change the coordinated case schedule, Dropbox’s motion is DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: 8/15/2017

23
24
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

25
26
27
1

28

The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).