Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 792

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME by Judge Paul S. Grewal, denying 787 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 9/26/2012. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, )
INC., ET AL.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
A10 NETWORKS, INC., ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: C 10-3428 PSG
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
CIVIL L.R. 6-3 MOTION TO
ENLARGE TIME

17
On September 21, 2012, A10 Networks, Inc. and Lee Chen (collectively “Defendants”)
18
moved under Civil L.R. 6-3(b) to postpone briefing and hearing of motions brought by Brocade
19
Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”).
20
On September 4, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law
21
(“JMOL”) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) following a jury verdict finding Defendants liable for
22
copyright infringement, patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and intentional contract
23
24

interference. 1 On September 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of a permanent
injunction, 2 a motion for production and accounting, 3 and a motion for entry of a judgment under

25
1

See Docket No. 776.

2

See Docket No. 783.

3

See Docket No. 782.

26
27
28

1
Case No.: C 10-03428 PSG
ORDER

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 4 The four motions were set for hearing on October 30, 2012, and the court

2

continued hearing on the motions until November 6, 2012. 5 Defendants request the court delay the

3

briefing and hearing of Plaintiffs’ motions until the court issues a decision on Defendants’ JMOL.

4

Civil L.R. 6-3(b) requires movants to “set[] forth with particularity, the reasons for the

5

requested enlargement” and to identify “the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if” the

6

motion was not granted. Defendants argue that because their JMOL may result in an overturn or

7

new interpretation of the jury verdict, the court’s decision may moot or materially affect the

8

outcome of Plaintiffs’ motions. That may be so. But if anything Defendants’ argument would

9

appear to support consolidating hearing all of the motions so that the court may consider the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

appropriate outcome for the various post-trial motions at one time. At the very least, Defendants

11

have not identified any substantial harm or prejudice that would result if Plaintiffs’ motions were

12

not postponed.

13

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to enlarge time for briefing and argument of Plaintiffs’

14

motions is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated: September

, 2012

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

4

See Docket No. 785.

28

5

See Docket No. 786.
2

Case No.: C 10-03428 PSG
ORDER