SRC Labs, LLC et al v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 82

ORDER RE-NOTING plaintiffs' 48 MOTION to Compel: Noting Date 4/20/2018; setting Telephonic Hearing on motion for 4/30/2018 at 01:30 PM; directing parties to file a proposed protective order no later than 4/24/2018, by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 SRC LABS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, 11 CASE NO. C18-0321JLR ORDER v. 12 13 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. 14 15 This case originated in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. (See 16 Dkt.) On February 16, 2018, Plaintiffs SRC Labs, LLC and Saint Regent Mohawk 17 Tribe’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) moved to compel certain discovery responses from 18 Defendant Microsoft Corporation. (MTC (Dkt. ## 48, 48-1).) After Microsoft filed a 19 motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Washington, Magistrate Judge John 20 F. Anderson stayed all discovery and canceled a hearing on the motion to compel. 21 (2/20/18 Order (Dkt. # 49).) On February 26, 2018, District Judge Liam O’Grady 22 granted the motion to transfer venue. (2/26/18 Order (Dkt. # 50).) ORDER - 1 1 On March 1, 2018, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington 2 and assigned to the Honorable Richard A. Jones. (See Dkt.) Nearly a month later, the 3 matter was reassigned to the undersigned judge as related to an earlier-filed case pending 4 before the undersigned judge. (3/30/18 Order (Dkt. # 77).) Shortly after reassignment, 5 Microsoft responded to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, which was not noted on the court’s 6 calendar. (MTC Resp. (Dkt. # 80); see also Dkt.) 7 Accordingly, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to note the motion to compel (Dkt. 8 # 48) for Friday, April 20, 2018. The court also ORDERS the parties to (1) appear at a 9 telephonic hearing on the motion on Monday, April 30, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., and (2) no 10 later than Tuesday, April 24, 2018, file for the court’s consideration a proposed protective 11 order addressing the issues the parties raise in their briefing. The court strongly advises 12 the parties to file a joint proposal but will accept separate proposals if the parties cannot 13 agree on a single submission. The Courtroom Deputy will contact the parties with 14 information about appearing at the telephonic hearing. 15 The court recognizes that Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel before transfer to 16 the Western District of Washington, assignment to the undersigned judge, and entry of 17 the undersigned judge’s scheduling order. However, the court ORDERS the parties to 18 first request a conference with the court before filing any additional discovery motions. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // ORDER - 2 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(v). The court’s scheduling order will further address that 2 requirement, which the court expects the parties to comply with going forward. 3 Dated this 11th day of April, 2018. 4 5 A 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 3

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?