Quia Corporation v. Mattel, Inc. et al

Filing 99

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd (1) granting in part 96 defendants' Motion for an Order Shortening Time; and (2) Setting Deadlines for Further Meet-and-Confer and Joint Status Report. Parties to conduct in-person, face-to-face meet-and-confer within the next 3 days. Joint status report as to any remaining issues due by 5/24/2011, 5:00 PM. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2011)

1
2

*E-FILED 05-17-2011*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12
13

No. C10-01902 JF (HRL)

QUIA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

14
MATTEL, INC. and FISHER-PRICE, INC.,

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN
ORDER SHORTENING TIME; AND (2)
SETTING DEADLINES FOR FURTHER
MEET-AND-CONFER AND JOINT
STATUS REPORT

15
[Re: Docket No. 96]

Defendants.
16
/
17
18

Defendants move for an order shortening time on their motion to compel expert

19

discovery. The crux of the instant discovery dispute is that plaintiff refuses to respond to

20

defendants’ expert subpoenas (seeking expert depositions and documents pertaining to

21

plaintiff’s experts’ reports) on the ground that the time for such discovery has passed.

22

Plaintiff’s position, however, is unjustified in view of Judge Fogel’s scheduling order setting

23

June 3, 2011 as the expert discovery cutoff. (See Docket No. 94). Plaintiff suggests that the

24

period for expert discovery does not contemplate or include service of expert subpoenas seeking

25

documents and testimony relating to plaintiff’s experts’ reports. That proposition is contrary to

26

any reasonable reading of the court’s scheduling order. Indeed, this court wonders why this

27

issue required a motion and takes a dim view of what appears to be gamesmanship by plaintiff

28

designed to thwart the progress of expert discovery. This is particularly so when the parties

1

have been directed to “cooperate in good faith to schedule expert discovery before [the June 3,

2

2011] deadline.” (Id. at 2).

3

The parties’ respective papers also allude to disputes—other than timing—over

4

defendants’ requested expert discovery. On the record presented, however, this court finds that

5

there has been insufficient meet-and-confer on those particular issues. See Civ. L.R. 1-5(n).

6
7

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for an order shortening time is granted in part, and this
court further orders as follows:

8
9

Within the next 3 days, the parties’ attorneys shall meet and confer in person, face-toface about the issues, other than timing, pertaining to the discovery sought by defendants’
expert subpoenas. The meet-and-confer shall be attended by lead counsel for each side. If lead

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

counsel are not the most familiar with the issues to be discussed, then the attorney(s) who are

12

most knowledgeable shall also attend the meeting. If, after 3 days all of the issues have not

13

been resolved, then no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 24, 2011, the parties shall file a joint status

14

report, not to exceed 7 pages, (1) certifying their compliance with this order, (2) identifying the

15

issues (if any) that remain in dispute and (3) stating the parties’ respective positions (and the

16

basis for each party’s position) as to each one. Upon review of that status report, the court will

17

decide whether it will hold a hearing and will provide notice to the parties accordingly.

18
19

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 17, 2011

20
HOWARD R. LLOYD
21

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:10-cv-01902-JF Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Bobby A. Ghajar

3

Kelly Wong Craven

4

Mark J. Nagle

5

Peter Edward Moll , Esq

6

Robert L. Meylan

7

Shaunt Toros Arevian

8

Shaw Pittman

9

Steven Marc Weinberg

[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.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

[e-mail], [e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3