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)

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