Novadaq Technologies v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. K.G. et al

Filing 209

ORDER RE: NOVADAQ'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE OF ITS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 205 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13

NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16

KARL STORZ GMBH & CO. KG, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG
ORDER RE: NOVADAQ’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
(Re: Docket No. 205)

Plaintiff Novadaq Technologies, Inc. moves for leave to file supplemental evidence in
support of its motion for sanctions because Defendants Karl Storz GmbH & Co. KG et al. filed
spreadsheets in its expert reports that were not produced during fact discovery.1 Karl Storz

21
22

opposes, contending that the spreadsheets were created for the expert reports and so did not need to

23

be produced, and that Novadaq did not meet and confer pursuant to L.R. 7-11(a).2 Karl Storz’s

24

arguments largely go to the merits, which Karl Storz has an opportunity to address at oral hearing

25
1

See Docket No. 205.

2

See Docket No. 206 at 2, 5.

26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG
ORDER RE: NOVADAQ’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

1

on August 18, 2015. While the court agrees with Karl Storz that Novadaq should have attempted

2

to meet and confer, the court has discretion to grant or deny a motion that lacks compliance under

3

the local rules.3 Novadaq’s motion therefore is GRANTED.

4

SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: August 10, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3

26
27
28

Cf. Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a
motion as the result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court's
discretion.”).
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG
ORDER RE: NOVADAQ’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS