Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00578-2/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 DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 41

On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff Patent Technology, LLC filed a motion to compel 

administrative discovery and noticed the motion for a hearing on November 5, 2015. [Docket No. 

41.] 

The motion is procedurally defective in several ways. First, Plaintiff did not comply with 

Civil Local Rules 7-2 and 7-4, in that its motion does not set forth “a concise statement of what 

relief or Court action” Plaintiff seeks and does not contain argument by Plaintiff, supported by 

pertinent authorities. For example, although it appears that Plaintiff seeks a court order 

compelling third parties Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation to respond to discovery 

served by Plaintiff, Plaintiff also discusses the circumstances of service of the complaint on 

Defendant Tao A. Olagoke. The court is unable to discern how Olagoke relates to the relief 

Plaintiff seeks from Bank of America and Microsoft Corporation. Further, Plaintiff does not cite 

authority for the relief it seeks. Plaintiff also failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-5, which 

requires that factual contentions made in support of a motion must be supported by an affidavit or 

declaration. For example, Plaintiff submitted a declaration by its counsel, Michael Klicpera, but 

the declaration does not contain all of the relevant facts discussed in the motion. For example, the 

relevant discovery at issue (the Rule 45 subpoenas) is not attached to or authenticated by 

Klicpera’s declaration.

Case 4:15-cv-00578-DMR Document 43 Filed 09/17/15 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

Finally, although it appears that Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling third parties Bank 

of America and Microsoft Corporation to respond to discovery served by Plaintiff, it appears that 

Plaintiff did not serve its motion on those entities, since Plaintiff did not file a proof of service of 

its motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel administrative discovery is denied without 

prejudice. 

If Plaintiff seeks to re-file its motion, it must comply with all applicable Civil Local Rules. 

Further, it must submit properly authenticated copies of the discovery that it served on Bank of 

America and Microsoft Corporation, along with a proof of service of the motion on those entities. 

Finally, November 5, 2015 is not an available hearing date before the undersigned. Plaintiff shall 

notice any re-filed motion on an available hearing date before the undersigned in accordance with 

the scheduling guidelines set forth in the court’s Standing Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 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 43 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2