Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STORUS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AROA MARKETING, INC., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-06-2454 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO CHANGE TIME; DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RE-OPEN

DISCOVERY AND REINSTATE

INVALIDITY DEFENSE 

Before the Court is defendants Aroa Marketing, Inc. and Skymall, Inc.’s “Motion to

Change Time Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3” (“Motion to Change Time”), filed February 11,

2008. Plaintiff Storus Corporation has filed “Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Change

Time,” to which defendants have replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in

support of and in response to the Motion to Change Time, the Court rules as follows.

By the instant motion, defendants seek to shorten time to hear defendants’ “Motion

to Re-Open Discovery and Reinstate Invalidity Defense” (“Motion to Re-Open”) filed

February 11, 2008. Defendants assert the Motion to Re-Open should be heard before

March 10, 2007, the date the trial is scheduled to begin. In their “opposition” to the Motion

to Change Time, plaintiff does not address whether the Motion to Re-Open should be

//

Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 205 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 2
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

1

Plaintiff’s opposition includes a request for sanctions. The request is hereby

DENIED as procedurally improper. See Civil L.R. 7-8 (providing motion for sanctions must

be separately filed and noticed for hearing).

2

heard on shortened time; rather, plaintiff addresses the merits of the Motion to Re-Open.1

Similarly, defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s “opposition” to the Motion to Change Time consists

of defendants’ response to plaintiff’s substantive arguments regarding the Motion to ReOpen.

Under such circumstances, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ Motion to

Change Time, deems the Motion to Re-Open submitted on the above-referenced papers,

and rules as follows.

Defendants have failed to show plaintiff violated any rule of disclosure or discovery. 

Further, defendants have failed to show the requisite diligence in connection with their

acquisition of the newly-discovered information; in particular, defendants have failed to

show the time at which such information first became available to the public through the

use of internet search engines, or the details of their prior attempts to obtain information of

such nature.

Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Re-Open is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 205 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2