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)

Download PDF
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

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?