Goldberg v. Cameron et al

Filing 96

ORDER by Judge Whyte denying 89 Motion for Discovery. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. JAMES CAMERON, GALE ANN HURD, et al. Defendants. NEIL B. GOLDBERG, Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING DISCOVERY [Re Docket No. 89] No. C-05-03534 RMW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION E-FILED on 01/26/09

Plaintiff Neil Goldberg moves for an order approving discovery to defend against Defendants' pending summary judgment motions. On December 18, 2008 the court continued the motions for summary judgment to Thursday, March 19, 2009 (later corrected to Friday, March 20, 2009) to allow Goldberg to respond. In that order, the court stated that if the parties could not agree on discovery, "plaintiff must file a request with the court setting forth the discovery necessary to respond to the motion for summary judgment." Plaintiffs motions for summary judgment focused exclusively on claims against Hurd and Cameron for their direct acts of infringement after August 21, 2002. Plaintiff now moves for an order permitting discovery of pre-2002 events in support of a claim of contributory infringement against defendants. That discovery appears unnecessary to respond to the pending summary judgment motions, and is therefore denied. Plaintiff may take
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING DISCOVERY--No. C-05-03534 RMW JAS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

discovery limited to that necessary to establish whether defendants committed any acts of direct infringement after August 31, 2002. Plaintiff may move to amend his complaint to include a claim for contributory infringement if he wishes to assert that theory. If such motion is granted, the court will then rule, if necessary, on discovery claims that arise. The parties are reminded that all discovery issues are referred to the assigned magistrate.

DATED:

01/26/09

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING DISCOVERY--No. C-05-03534 RMW JAS 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Plaintiff: Jefferson Thomas Stamp Counsel for Defendants: Charles Nathan Shephard Bruce Alan Isaacs David Boren [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated:

01/29/09

JAS Chambers of Judge Whyte

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING DISCOVERY--No. C-05-03534 RMW JAS 3