Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00487/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00487-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-00487-LHK

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND TO ADD 

PROPOSED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

HITACHI DATA SYSTEMS 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE RICHARDSON COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-CV-00487-LHK 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE 

TO AMEND TO ADD PROPOSED 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Plaintiff’s Attorneys: John Boudet, Shayne Thomas

Defendant’s Attorney: Jared Matheson

A case management conference was held on September 23, 2015. A further case 

management conference is set for December 16, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file their 

joint case management statement by December 9, 2015.

At the initial case management conference, the Court, with the approval of the parties, set 

July 15, 2015 as the deadline to file a motion to amend pleadings or add parties. That deadline 

passed more than two months ago. At the initial case management conference, the Court, with the 

approval of the parties, also set a January 28, 2016 fact discovery cutoff date.

In the September 16, 2015 Joint Case Management Conference, Plaintiff Hitachi Data 

Systems Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “HDS”) stated: “In the event mediation is unsuccessful, HDS 

anticipates filing a motion to amend its affirmative defenses. The motion would be filed no later 

than September 29, 2015.” The parties’ September 21, 2015 mediation was unsuccessful.

Case 5:15-cv-00487-LHK Document 46 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 15-CV-00487-LHK

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND TO ADD 

PROPOSED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

At the September 23, 2015 Case Management Conference, Plaintiff identified for the first 

time that it wanted to add an affirmative defense “that damages must be reasonable for 

counterclaims” and an affirmative defense of “unconscionability.” Plaintiff had never previously 

disclosed, discussed or provided a copy of these proposed affirmative defenses to Defendant. At 

the September 23, 2015 Case Management Conference, Plaintiff conceded that these proposed 

affirmative defenses may not in fact be affirmative defenses. Plaintiff also conceded that 

Plaintiff’s proposed affirmative defenses did not depend on issues of fact or law that were 

unknown to Plaintiff prior to July 15, 2015. 

Generally, leave to amend shall be denied only if allowing amendment would unduly 

prejudice the opposing party, cause undue delay, or be futile, or if the moving party has acted in 

bad faith. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). In the 

instant case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated due diligence with respect to these 

two proposed affirmative defenses and has caused undue delay in failing to timely move to amend. 

Moreover, the Court finds that the filing of a motion to amend affirmative defenses on September 

29, 2015 will not give the parties sufficient time to brief the motion, have the motion heard and 

decided, and complete any discovery on these proposed affirmative defenses, if they in fact are 

affirmative defenses, before the January 28, 2016 fact discovery cutoff date. Thus, allowing 

Plaintiff to file a motion to amend two and a half months after the deadline would unduly 

prejudice Defendant. In addition, amendment may be futile; even Plaintiff itself concedes that its 

proposed affirmative defenses may not in fact constitute affirmative defenses. In light of all of 

these circumstances, the Court denies Plaintiff leave to amend to add its two proposed affirmative 

defenses. See Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972) (“A district court has 

inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will 

promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). 

Thus far, Plaintiff has not provided a proposed protective order to Defendant. Plaintiff 

shall serve Defendant a copy of a proposed protective order by September 23, 2015. Defendant 

shall respond to the proposed protective order by September 28, 2015. The parties shall file a 

stipulated protective order for Magistrate Judge Grewal’s signature by October 2, 2015.

The case schedule remains as previously set. For the convenience of the parties, the 

schedule is repeated below:

Scheduled Event Date

Deadline to complete ADR September 30, 2015

Fact discovery cutoff January 28, 2016

Opening expert reports February 25, 2016

Rebuttal expert reports March 10, 2016

Close of expert discovery March 24, 2016

Last day to file dispositive motions

(one per side in entire case)

April 7, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-00487-LHK Document 46 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 15-CV-00487-LHK

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND TO ADD 

PROPOSED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

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

Hearing on dispositive motions May 19, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

Final Pretrial conference July 21, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

Jury Trial August 8, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

Length of Trial 5 days

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00487-LHK Document 46 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3