Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 811

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying #800 Motion (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

Samsung filed an administrative motion seeking temporary relief from the requirement that

20

lead trial counsel meet and confer in person or in the alternative, for a twelve day extension to file

21

any outstanding motions to compel. See ECF No. 800. Apple filed an opposition to Samsung’s

22

motion. ECF No. 805. Apple requested its own alteration to the lead counsel meet and confer

23

requirement, and also requested a five day extension of the motion to compel deadline. Samsung

24

filed a reply in support of its administrative motion. ECF No. 808.

25

The Court finds that neither party has identified good cause for either relieving the parties

26

of the lead counsel meet and confer requirement or extending the deadline for which to file motions

27

to compel. The parties have known that the discovery cut off was approaching for months and

28

have, nonetheless, created a last minute scramble for relief from this Court’s order and the Civil
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

1

Local Rules. Moreover, neither party has identified, with particularity, how it would be prejudiced

2

without relief from the rules.

3

The Court has no doubt that the parties could continue with fact discovery for months, if
not years, without exhausting resources or topics of discoverable material. However, at some

5

point, fact discovery must close, and the process must move on. The parties have reached that

6

deadline. Accordingly, Samsung’s administrative motion is DENIED. The parties shall comply

7

with the lead counsel meet and confer requirement and with the deadline to file motions to compel

8

imposed by Civil Local Rule 37-3.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

Dated: March 14, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION