Enertrode, Inc. v. General Capacitor Co. Ltd et al

Filing 115

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 101 MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER AND FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Amended Pleadings due by 9/27/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
In Re General Capacitor

7
8

Case No. 16-cv-02458-HSG
Consolidated with Case No. 17-cv-179-HSG

10

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO MODIFY SCHEDULING
ORDER AND FILE A SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

11

Re: Dkt. No. 101

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

12

On August 4, 2017, Plaintiffs Enertrode, Inc. and Linda Zhong filed a motion to modify

13

the Court’s scheduling order and for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which

14

would add Dr. Wanjun “Ben” Cao (“Cao”) as a defendant for the misappropriation of trade secrets

15

and declaratory judgment claims. Dkt. No. 101. The motion is opposed by Defendants General

16

Capacitor Co. Ltd.; General Capacitor International, Inc.; and General Capacitor, LLC. Dkt. No.

17

104. The motion is now fully briefed,1 and is pending before the Court.2

18

The party seeking to amend a pleading after expiration of the deadline set by the pretrial

19

scheduling order “must satisfy the ‘good cause’ standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

20

16(b)(4), which provides that ‘[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the

21

judge’s consent,’ rather than the liberal standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).” In re

22

W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) (brackets in

23

original), aff’d sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015). The Ninth Circuit

24

has held that:
Rule 16(b)’s “good cause” standard primarily considers the

25
26
1

27
28

Plaintiffs filed their reply on August 29, 2017. Dkt. No. 110. The Court DENIES Defendants’
administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply. See Dkt. No. 112.
2
The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

4

diligence of the party seeking the amendment. The district court
may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. . . .
Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing
the modification might supply additional reasons to deny a motion,
the focus of the inquiry is upon the moving party’s reasons for
seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry
should end.

5

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and quotation

6

marks omitted). If “good cause” for amendment is found under Rule 16(b), then the Court should

7

deny leave to amend “only if such amendment would be futile.” Heath v. Google Inc., No. 15-cv-

8

01824-BLF, 2016 WL 4070135, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2016); see also Kisaka v. Univ. of S.

9

Cal., No. CV 11-01942 BRO (MANx), 2013 WL 12203018, at *2–3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013)

10

(assessing motion for leave to amend under Rule 16(b) and holding that even if the Court were to

11

find diligence and lack of prejudice, amendment would nonetheless be futile).

1
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

12

Here, Plaintiffs have satisfied the “good cause” standard of Rule 16(b) by acting diligently

13

to file this motion relatively soon after becoming aware of new information during discovery. The

14

deadline for amendment of pleadings and/or joinder of parties was June 1, 2017. Dkt. No. 57.

15

During his deposition on June 20, 2017, Cao testified that he had drafted and filed the non-

16

provisional patent application, that he did not disclose this fact to Plaintiff Zhong, and that he had

17

worked on the application at home, at night, and on the weekends. Dkt. No. 101-4 at 106:3–21,

18

107:14–16, 108:8–17. Plaintiffs confirmed this testimony upon receipt of the deposition transcript

19

in mid-July. Dkt. No. 101-2 ¶¶ 4, 7. On July 20, 2017, Plaintiffs requested that Defendants

20

stipulate to amend, which Defendants declined to do on July 22, 2017. Id. Plaintiffs filed the

21

instant motion less than two weeks later. Defendants have not provided any persuasive evidence

22

showing that Plaintiffs could have obtained the information concerning the drafting and filing of

23

the non-provisional patent application prior to Cao’s deposition, which Plaintiffs conducted over

24

three months before the close of fact discovery on September 30, 2017. The Court finds that

25

Plaintiffs acted diligently by seeking leave to amend less than two months after discovering new

26

information during discovery. See Frucon Const. Corp v. Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., No. CIV.

27

S-05-583 LKK/GGH, 2006 WL 3733815, at *4–5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2006) (finding good cause

28

where the defendant sought leave to amend two months after learning new information through
2

1

discovery). Finally, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments that the motion is futile.

2

See Dkt. No. 104 at 15–16.

3
4
5
6

For the foregoing reasons the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. The SAC must be filed
within two days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/25/2017

7
8
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3