Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom et al

Filing 152

ORDER DENYING 146 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/8/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 5 FITBIT, INC., Case No. 15-cv-04073-EJD Plaintiff, 6 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULE v. 7 8 ALIPHCOM, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 146 Defendants. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Extend Pretrial Schedule, which seeks 12 a 60-day extension of the Court’s pretrial schedule. Dkt. No. 146. Although the motion states that 13 it seeks relief under Civil Local Rule 6-3, this is in fact a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) 14 motion to modify the case schedule. The Court thus evaluates it as such. 15 Under Rule 16(b)(4), “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the 16 judge’s consent.” “Good cause” exists when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the 17 diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 18 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Here, Defendants have failed to show diligence. 19 Defendants have been represented by the same law firm since May 25, 2017, and they should have 20 been preparing their case since at least that time. A June 19, 2017 assignment of assets does not 21 change this fact. Defendants’ motion discusses their need for additional time, but it lacks evidence 22 or argument that Defendants have been diligent. As such, good cause is not apparent on this 23 showing. Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 8, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge Case No.: 15-cv-04073-EJD ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION OT EXTEND PRETRIAL SCHEDULE 1

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?