Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp. et al

Filing 304

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 303 Discovery Letter Brief. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2021)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff, 6 7 8 9 v. CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP., et al., Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-00939-PJH ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF Re: Dkt. No. 303 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Before the court is a discovery letter brief filed by the parties in the above- 13 captioned case. See Dkt. 303. In the letter, Chilisin requests that the court re-open 14 discovery post-trial and order Cyntec to supplement its discovery responses. Chilisin’s 15 request is based on an email produced by Cyntec during discovery that references a 16 “Master Development and Supply Agreement” (“MDSA”) with Apple. 17 Importantly, the email that gives rise to Chilisin’s request has been in Chilisin’s 18 possession since at least January 10, 2020, the date on which fact discovery closed. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Chilisin’s request to re-open discovery at this late stage is not only untimely, but also shows a lack of diligence by Chilisin in failing to pursue the discovery before trial. Moreover, it is highly speculative to argue that, if the MDSA were to be produced, it would show that Chilisin’s activity was protected under a licensing or similar non-assertion provision. Accordingly, Chilisin’s request to re-open discovery is DENIED. The current deadlines for post-trial briefing shall remain in place. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 17, 2021 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District 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?