Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03009/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-03009-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-03009-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BODUM USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-CV-03009-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 70

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to modify the briefing schedule for Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 70. Defendant argues that in order to maintain the 

February 2, 2017 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court should extend the time for 

Plaintiff to file a response to the motion for summary judgment to January 9, 2017 and extend the 

time for Defendant to file a reply to January 19, 2017. Id. at 2.

Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was due on November 

7, 2016. ECF No. 63. On that day, rather than file an opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment based on the current record, Plaintiff responded to the motion for summary judgment in 

the form of an opposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56(d). ECF No. 67. 

Plaintiff has elected to treat this Rule 56(d) motion as its response to the motion for summary 

Case 5:16-cv-03009-LHK Document 72 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-CV-03009-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

judgment. See ECF No. 71, at 2 (“Bodum did respond—with a Rule 56(d) opposition . . . .”); id. 

(stating that Defendant’s motion would require “Bodum to respond, again, to the summary 

judgment motion”). Defendant may file a reply to this Rule 56(d) opposition without any need for 

the Court to issue a modified briefing schedule.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to modify the briefing schedule for Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment is DENIED. The Court will rule on Plaintiff’s request for relief under Rule 

56(d) in a separate order. The February 2, 2017 hearing date for Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment, together with all other deadlines the Court has set, remains as scheduled. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-03009-LHK Document 72 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 2