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)
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NOT FOR CITATION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?