Aristocrat Technologies et al v. International Game Technology et al

Filing 782

INTERIM ORDER re 781 re Plaintiffs Expedited Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Document Request Nos. 3, 18, 22, 27-29 and 32-35. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 4/29/10. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 4/29/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying the present motion. OR D E R, page 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) INTERNATIONAL GAME ) TECHNOLOGY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) ) AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 06-3717 RMW (PVT) INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' EX PED ITED MOTION TO COMPEL RESPO N SES TO PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENT RE Q U E ST NOS. 3, 18, 22, 27-29 AND 32-35 (Re: Docket No. 711) On April 28, 2010, the parties submitted a joint letter brief regarding the Plaintiffs' pending Expedited Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Document Request Responses Nos. 3, 18, 22, 27-29 and 32-35, which was filed before the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Trumbull for discovery matters.1 Based on the joint letter brief and the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than May 5, 2010, the parties shall submit to Judge Trumbull's chambers (via the clerk's office) additional chambers copies of all briefs and declarations they previously submitted in connection with this motion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' request for a telephone status conference to discuss the status of discovery is DENIED. Contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, discovery was not open when Judge Whyte stayed the case. While the parties requested the stay on November 19, 2009, Judge Whyte did not order the stay until December 23, 2009, after the December 11, 2009 discovery cut-off. Nothing in the order staying the case made the stay retroactive. On the contrary, the order states that the matter "shall be, and hereby is stayed," indicating that the stay began the day Judge Whyte issued the order. This order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs moving to reopen discovery. Plaintiffs may make their motion on two weeks notice. Any opposition shall be filed at least one week before the noticed hearing date.2 Dated: April 29, 2010 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge Unless the requested period of discovery would actually interfere with matters unrelated to discovery on Judge Whyte's calendar, any such motion should be noticed on the calendar of the assigned Magistrate Judge. Judge Trumbull hears law and motion on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. Briefs filed in connection with motions on Judge Trumbull's calendar shall be in proper format, not letter briefs. OR D E R, page 2 2

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?