Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

PATENT TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE WOODMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00578-DMR 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 46

The court has received Plaintiff’s “motion to reconsider and response to order re second 

motion to compel.” [Docket No. 46.] It appears Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s 

September 24, 2015 order on Plaintiff Patent Technology, LLC’s second motion to compel 

discovery from third parties Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation. [Docket No. 45.] In 

that order, the court reset the hearing on Plaintiff’s second motion to compel, set a briefing 

schedule for the motion, and ordered Plaintiff to “either file a proof of service of its motion [to 

compel] on Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation, or . . . serve the motion on Bank of 

America and Microsoft Corporation and file a proof of service thereon” by October 2, 2015.1 

[Docket No. 45 at 1.] 

In its “motion to reconsider,” Plaintiff indicates that it already “electronically filed the 

Proof of Service for Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation,” citing Dockets No. 38-40 and 

exhibits attached to the second motion to compel. [See Docket Nos. 44-2, 44-3.] These proofs of 

service appear to show that Plaintiff served its Rule 45 subpoenas on Bank of America and 

Microsoft Corporation. This misses the point. Plaintiff seeks to compel Bank of America and 

 

1

This was the second time the court had ordered Plaintiff to serve a copy of its motion to compel 

on the third parties. On September 17, 2015, the court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s first 

motion to compel, noting that if Plaintiff sought to re-file its motion, it must submit “proof of 

service of the motion on” Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation. [Docket No. 43 at 2.]

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 48 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Microsoft Corporation to comply with and respond to its subpoenas, but has not filed proof 

that it has served the second motion to compel on Bank of America and Microsoft 

Corporation.

Therefore, since it remains unclear whether Plaintiff has served its second motion to 

compel on Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation, the court hereby vacates the briefing 

schedule for the second motion to compel previously set in its September 24, 2015 order. By no 

later than October 7, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a proof of service of the second motion to 

compel on Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation. If it has not already served a copy 

of the second motion to compel on Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation, Plaintiff 

shall serve the second motion to compel on Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation and 

file a proof of service thereon. Plaintiff shall also serve a copy of this order and the 

September 24, 2015 order on Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation and file a proof of 

service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 48 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 2