Hitachi Kokusai Electric Inc. v. ASM International, N.V. et al

Filing 126

ORDER DENYING 120 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-3. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/12/2019. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8

HITACHI KOKUSAI ELECTRIC INC., et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.
10
11

ASM INTERNATIONAL, N.V., et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06880-BLF
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL
RULE 6-3
[Re: ECF 120]

12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Extension of Time (“Motion”) pursuant to

14

Civil Local Rule 6-3. Motion, ECF 120. Plaintiffs state that under the current Scheduling Order,

15

Plaintiffs’ Damages Contentions are due on June 28, 2019, over a month before Defendants’

16

Invalidity Contentions which are due on August 2, 2019. See Motion at 1; Scheduling Order at 1,

17

ECF 117. Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to serve their

18

Damages Contentions to September 23, 2019, because “Damages Contentions are usually due ‘50

19

days after service of the Invalidity Contentions.’” See Motion at 1 (citing Patent L.R. 3-8).

20

Defendants oppose, on the basis that Plaintiffs’ request “is unnecessary” and that Plaintiffs would

21

not be prejudiced under the current Scheduling Order because “[t]here is no additional relevant

22

damages discovery Plaintiffs are actually waiting for or need.” See Opp’n at 2, ECF 122. For the

23

reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.

24

A party seeking to amend a scheduling order must show “good cause” for such relief. Fed.

25

R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

26

consent.”). A “good cause determination focuses primarily on the diligence of the moving party.”

27

Yeager v. Yeager, 2009 WL 1159175, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2009) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth

28

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)). Courts may take into account any resulting

1

prejudice to the opposing party, but “the focus of the [Rule 16(b)] inquiry is upon the moving

2

party’s reasons for seeking modification . . . [i]f that party was not diligent, the inquiry should

3

end.” In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013) aff’d

4

sub nom. Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1591 (2015) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).

5

Here, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated diligence in seeking the requested modification. On

6

March 14, 2019, the parties stipulated to modify Defendants’ deadline to disclose Invalidity

7

Contentions to August 2, 2019 (the same day as Plaintiffs’ deadline to disclose Invalidity

8

Contentions regarding counterclaim patents), while leaving the June 28, 2019 deadline for

9

Damages Contentions for all patents in place. See Ex. A to Joint Stipulation, ECF 101-1. On
March 15, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Stipulation incorporating those same

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

deadlines. See ECF 102. On April 25, 2019, the parties again stipulated to the same deadlines in

12

seeking a separate change to the Scheduling Order, see ECF 116-1, which the Court granted on

13

April 26, 2019, see ECF 117. Thus, Plaintiffs have had the current schedule at their disposal for

14

months prior to bringing the instant Motion.

15

While Plaintiff argues that Patent Local Rule 3-8 was intended to give a plaintiff 50 days

16

after service of the Invalidity Contentions to serve Damages Contentions, see Motion at 2, this rule

17

merely provides that Damages Contentions are due “[n]ot later than 50 days after service of the

18

Invalidity Contentions,” see Patent L.R. 3-8. In other words, Patent Local Rule 3-8 provides an

19

ultimate deadline for service of Damages Contentions but does not prevent parties from stipulating

20

to a different schedule with an earlier deadline, as is the case here. Plaintiffs contend that in

21

stipulating to the current schedule, “Plaintiffs inadvertently omitted including a corresponding

22

change to the due date for the Damages Contentions.” See Motion at 3. However, the current

23

Damages Contentions deadline applies to both Plaintiffs and Defendants, and Plaintiffs do not

24

argue that both sides inadvertently failed to adjust the deadline in the parties’ prior stipulations.

25

In sum, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby DENIED.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: June 12, 2019

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
2