Tetsuya et al-v- Amazon.Com,Inc

Filing 61

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 60 Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1. Plaintiff to serve amended infringement contentions within 14 days from the date of this order. Parties to meet-and-confer re any necessary modifications to other court-ordered deadlines.(hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2012)

Download PDF
1 *E-FILED: February 14, 2012* 2 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 TETSUYA JOE NOMURA, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 7 No. C11-01210 HRL 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT #1 v. 14 AMAZON.COM, INC. [Re: Docket No. 60] 15 Defendant. 16 / 17 18 Plaintiff’s Patent Local Rule 3-1 disclosure of asserted claims and infringement 19 contentions was due on December 27, 2011. Defendant Amazon.com (Amazon) contends that 20 the disclosures served on that date were inadequate. Amazon agreed that plaintiff could have an 21 additional three weeks, i.e., to January 20, 2012, to amend his contentions. This court 22 subsequently approved the parties’ stipulation to modify certain other case management 23 deadlines. (Dkt. No. 59). Amazon now files a Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) advising that plaintiff 24 25 failed to provide any amended contentions and that, despite defendant’s efforts to meet-and- 26 confer, plaintiff has failed to engage in any meaningful communications about his disclosures.1 27 28 Amazon says that it also gave plaintiff an opportunity to join in the instant DDJR as per the undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes. The court is told that plaintiff failed to respond. 1 1 Amazon seeks an order compelling plaintiff to provide his infringement contentions, which are 2 now well overdue. 3 4 5 Amazon’s request is granted. Within 14 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall serve his amended infringement contentions in compliance with Patent Local Rule 3-1. Because plaintiff’s tardy infringement contentions will necessitate modification to other 6 court-ordered deadlines, the parties shall meet-and-confer re a proposed revised schedule for the 7 court’s consideration. 8 9 SO ORDERED. Dated: February 14, 2012 ________________________________ HOWARD R. LLOYD 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 5:11-cv-01210-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 Bryan J. Sinclair 3 sara.kerrane@klgates.com 4 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. bryan.sinclair@klgates.com, adrienne.wilson@klgates.com, 5 6 5:11-cv-01210-HRL Notice sent by U.S. Mail to: 7 Tetsuya Joe Nomura 3288 Pierce Street, Suite C-129 Richmond, CA 94804-5952 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?