Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al v. Viasat, Inc.

Filing 181

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS 158 MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE CLOSE OF FACT DISCOVERY AND EXTEND CASE SCHEDULE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SANDISK3D IP HOLDINGS LTD., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

v.

10

VIASAT, INC.,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 22-cv-04376-HSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO EXTEND THE
DEADLINE FOR THE CLOSE OF
FACT DISCOVERY AND EXTEND
CASE SCHEDULE
Re: Dkt. No. 158

12
13

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs SanDisk 3D IP Holdings Ltd., SanDisk Technologies

14

LLC, SanDisk Storage Malaysia SDN BHD, and Sandisk Technologies, Inc.’s (collectively,

15

“Plaintiffs”) motion, filed on the evening of the fact discovery deadline, to extend the deadline for

16

the close of fact discovery and extend case schedule. Dkt. No. 158. The Court finds this matter

17

appropriate for disposition without oral argument and takes it under submission. See Civil L.R. 7-

18

1(b). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion.

19

This case has been pending for almost three years.1 The initial case management

20

conference was held on December 19, 2023. Dkt. No. 82. The Court entered a case schedule on

21

December 27, 2023, setting the deadline for the close of claim construction discovery on April 10,

22

2024. Dkt. No. 86. The Court held a claim construction hearing on August 27, 2024, Dkt. No.

23

109, and issued its claim construction order on September 20, 2024. Dkt. No. 120. A further case

24

management conference was held on October 15, 2024, Dkt. No. 128, and the Court entered a

25

scheduling order for the remainder of the case. The scheduling order set the deadline for the close

26

of fact discovery on February 7, 2025, the deadline for the close of expert discovery on May 9,

27
28

1

Plaintiffs filed the case on July 28, 2022, Dkt. No. 1, and filed an amended complaint on
November 8, 2023. Dkt. No. 73.

1

2025, and a jury trial start date of December 1, 2025. Dkt. No. 131. Plaintiffs now move to

2

extend the scheduling order as follows:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dkt. No. 158 at 3.
Plaintiffs offer two justifications for their proposed extension. First, Plaintiffs argue an

14

extension is necessary due to Defendant’s “[b]elated [i]dentification of [w]itnesses.” Id. Plaintiffs

15

contend that Defendant served amended Rule 26 disclosures on December 10, 2024, which

16

identified “two new financial witnesses[,]” “six new technical witnesses—including two in

17

Ireland[,]” and a “third party relating to the operation, design, and development of products and

18

instrumentalities that relate to the Accused Products,” such that a “modest extension . . . is

19

necessary to accommodate the remaining depositions . . . .” Id. at 3–4. Defendant counters that

20

Plaintiffs did not seek to take any depositions until December 2024, and notes that Plaintiffs have

21

already deposed all but three of the witnesses identified in Defendant’s amended Rule 26

22

disclosures. Dkt. No. 166 at 4. Next, Plaintiffs argue that an extension is necessary due to

23

Defendant’s “belated (and still-incomplete) document production.” Dkt. No. 158 at 4–6.

24

Plaintiffs contend that “more than half of [Defendant’s] document production occurred after the

25

January 6, 2025 deadline for substantial completion of document discovery,” “recent depositions

26

have confirmed that [] deficiencies in [Defendant’s] production remain,” and “[Defendant] has

27

failed to produce financial and other damages-related data for the Accused Functionalities.” Id.

28

Defendant counters that it “produced technical documentation by the Jan[uary] 6 substantial
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

completion deadline” and the documents produced after January 6 were “non-technical marketing

2

materials” responsive to discovery requests Plaintiffs served on December 7, 2024. Dkt. No. 166

3

at 5.

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) provides that the district court must issue a

5

scheduling order that limits the time to join other parties, amend the pleadings, complete

6

discovery, and file motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Once in place, “[a] schedule may be

7

modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Id. The “good cause” requirement of

8

Rule 16 “primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.” See Johnson v.

9

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); see also 6A Wright & Miller, et

10

al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1522.2 (3d ed. 2018) (“What constitutes good cause sufficient to justify

11

the modification of a scheduling order necessarily varies with the circumstances of each case.”).

12

“The district court may modify the pretrial schedule if it cannot reasonably be met despite the

13

diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (quotation omitted).

14

“Although the existence or degree of prejudice to the party opposing the modification might

15

supply additional reasons to deny a motion . . . [i]f [the] party was not diligent, the inquiry should

16

end.” Id.

17

Plaintiffs have not shown good cause to extend the case schedule. Despite initiating this

18

case in July 2022, Plaintiffs opted not to notice or take any fact depositions until December 2024.

19

Plaintiffs also “waited until Dec[ember] 31, 2024 to serve a Rule 30(b)(6) notice with 104

20

deposition topics” and served “twenty new discovery requests” on December 7, 2024. Id. at 3.

21

This District’s local rules direct parties to “initiate discovery requests and notice depositions

22

sufficiently in advance of the [discovery] cut-off date.” L.R. 37-3, Commentary. Although

23

Defendant bears some responsibility for disclosing new witnesses in December 2024, Plaintiffs

24

could and should have acted sooner. Put another way, Plaintiffs have not shown diligence here.

25

//

26

//

27
28
3

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the deadline for the close of

1
2

fact discovery and the case schedule. Dkt. No. 158.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5
6

Dated:

3/10/2025
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
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
4