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)

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