Oracle America, Inc. v. Innovative Technology Distributors, LLC

Filing 159

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying (157) Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in case 5:11-cv-01043-LHK.Associated Cases: 5:11-cv-01043-LHK, 5:11-cv-02135-LHK(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
Defendant.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01043-LHK
Related Case No: 11-CV-02135-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CHANGE TIME FOR OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(re: dkt. #157)

16
On July 19, 2012, Innovative Technology Distributors, LLC (“ITD”) moved for an order
17
extending the time for ITC’s opposition to Oracle’s motion for summary judgment by four days,
18
from July 26, 2012, to July 30, 2012. See ECF No. 157. Oracle opposes the request. See ECF No.
19
158.
20
Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, ITD’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment is due
21
July 26, 2012. ITD’s sole asserted basis for the requested extension is that it “needs additional
22
time to respond to Oracle’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which includes a 25-page
23
memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration with 66 exhibits [totaling] 200-pages of
24
evidentiary materials.” Id. This is not good cause for an enlargement of time. Oracle’s motion for
25
summary judgment complies with the page limitations set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-4, and its
26
accompanying evidentiary submissions are not unreasonably voluminous. ITD has not shown how
27
it will be unfairly prejudiced by having to comply with the Civil Local Rules. Moreover, any
28

1
Case No.: 11-cv-01043-LHK
Related Case No.: 11-cv-02135-LHK
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

1

extension given to ITD would in fairness have to be extended to Oracle’s reply deadline, which

2

would encroach on the Court’s time to review the motion. Accordingly, no good cause having

3

been shown, ITD’s motion for enlargement of time to file its opposition is DENIED.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: July 26, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 11-cv-01043-LHK
Related Case No.: 11-cv-02135-LHK
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME