Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. v. IPtronics Inc. et al

Filing 884

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 815 Motion to Strike. (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES FIBER IP
(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., et al.,

8

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE

Plaintiffs,
9
v.

(Re: Docket No. 815)

10
IPTRONICS INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiffs Avago Technologies, Inc. et al. move to strike portions of Mr. Michael J.

14

Lasinski’s expert report.1 Lasinski is an expert for Defendants IPtronics, Inc. et al.2 Avago’s

15

motion is DENIED as untimely.

16

Last February, the presiding judge set a November 24, 2015 deadline for filing expert

17

discovery motions.3 This was Avago’s requested deadline; IPtronics sought an earlier deadline.4

18

As discovery proceeded, the parties stipulated to extensions of various expert discovery

19

deadlines.5 However, none of the stipulations addressed the deadline for filing expert discovery

20

motions, which thus remained November 24, 2015.

21
1

See Docket No. 815.

2

See id. at 1.

3

See Docket No. 522 at 7.

4

See id. at 2.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

See Docket No. 762 (extending deadline for expert disclosures on damages); Docket No. 774
(extending deadlines for expert discovery on damages and Defendants’ rebuttal expert disclosures
on damages); Docket No. 777 (extending close of expert discovery on all issues) .
1
Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

Avago filed its motion to strike on December 14, 2015, and so the motion is untimely

1
2

under the presiding judge’s scheduling order. Avago argues that its motion is timely under Civ.

3

L.R. 37-3.6 Civ. L.R. 37-3 governs motions to compel, however, and does not apply to this

4

motion to strike. Because Avago’s motion is untimely under the scheduling order issued by the

5

presiding judge, the undersigned may not consider this motion. Any request for relief from the

6

scheduling order must be directed to the presiding judge.

7

SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: January 19, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

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

6

See Docket No. 815 at 4.
2

Case No. 5:10-cv-02863-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE