Openwave Systems, Inc. v. 724 Solutions (US) Inc et al

Filing 218

ORDER DENYING 198 , 204 , 215 , 217 ; VACATING 197 , 202 , 212 , 214 ; AND GRANTING 211 . Within the next 14 days, the parties attorneys (including their lead attorneys) on these matters shall meet and confer in person, face-to-face, abo ut their respective motions. If after 14 days all of the issues have not been resolved, Openwave and/or 724 Solutions may thereafter file new motions to compel complete with new briefing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lloyd on 08/04/2010. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2010)

Openwave Systems, Inc. v. 724 Solutions (US) Inc et al

Doc. 218

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

** E-filed August 4, 2010 **

NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and OPENWAVE SYSTEMS (ROI) Ltd., its Republic of Ireland subsidiary, Plaintiffs, v. 724 SOLUTIONS (US) INC., a Delaware corporation; and 724 SOLUTIONS SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. ____________________________________/ During the past week, the parties have inundated the Court with motions to compel and associated administrative motions. Openwave re-noticed two motions to compel for hearing on August 17 and filed administrative motions to allow it to file "supplemental" briefs, purportedly to "update" the Court as to the status of the disputes because many of the issues addressed in the original motions have apparently been resolved.1 (Docket Nos. 197, 198, 214 & 215). It also filed a new motion to compel a deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6) and noticed it for hearing on September 7. (Docket No. 212.) On the other side, 724 Solutions filed a "renewed" motion to compel and an No. C09-03511 RS (HRL) ORDER RE: PARTIES' MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS [Re: Docket Nos. 197, 198, 202, 204, 211, 212, 214, 215 & 217]

United States District Court

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

For the Northern District of California

The Court notes that Openwave's re-noticed its motion to compel within the standard 35-day period (see Civil Local Rule 7-3) but did not file a motion to shorten time.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

administrative motion for the Court to hear its motion on shortened time on August 31. (Docket Nos. 202 & 204.) The parties oppose each other's administrative motions.2 Upon review of the moving papers, the Court does not find good cause to grant either party's requests. Given the amount of time that has elapsed since Openwave originally filed its motions, the Court believes that new briefs -- not simply "supplemental" ones -- would best clarify any remaining disputed issues.3 And 724 Solutions fails to convince the Court to hear its motion on shortened time, especially considering that there is no discovery cutoff yet set in this case. Moreover, Openwave represents that it has produced, and will continue to produce, documents which it says are likely to resolve some of the issues raised by 724 Solutions. (See Docket No. 206 at 1.) CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court rules as follows: (1) Openwave's administrative motions for leave to file supplemental briefs (Docket Nos. 198 & 215) and 724 Solutions's administrative motion to shorten time (Docket No. 204) are DENIED. The Court further VACATES the parties' noticed hearing dates of August 17 and 31 for their motions to compel, pursuant to (3) below. (See Docket Nos. 197, 202 & 214). (2) The September 7, 2010 noticed hearing date on Openwave's motion to compel a FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition is VACATED, pursuant to (3) below (See Docket No. 212.) (3) Within the next 14 days, the parties' attorneys (including their lead attorneys) on these matters shall meet and confer in person, face-to-face, about their respective motions. If after 14 days all of the issues have not been resolved, Openwave and/or 724 Solutions may thereafter file new motions to compel complete with new briefing.

United States District Court

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

For the Northern District of California

Openwave filed a reply to 724 Solutions's opposition to Openwave's administrative motion for leave to file a supplemental brief regarding one of its re-noticed motions to compel. (Docket No. 210.) 724 Solutions filed a motion to strike that paper because Civil Local Rule 7-11 does not provide for reply briefs in relation to administrative motions. (Docket No. 211.) The Court will grant 724 Solutions's motion. 3 Openwave also filed an administrative motion for leave to file under seal Exhibit 4 to its "supplemental" brief related to its second re-noticed motion. (Docket No. 217.) As the Court will deny Openwave's motions to file supplemental briefs, it likewise will deny Openwave's motion to file under seal. 2

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(4) 724 Solutions's motion to strike (Docket No. 211) is GRANTED. (5) Openwave's administrative motion for leave to file under seal (Docket No. 217) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2010 HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States District Court

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

For the Northern District of California

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C09-03511 RS (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: Ahren Christian Hoffman Brett Michael Schuman Claude M. Stern Daniel Johnson, Jr Evette Dionna Pennypacker Jesse Geraci Michael Henry Page Ray R. Zado Ryan Lindsay Scher Thai Q Le [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail]

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

United States District Court

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

For the Northern District of California

4