Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01200/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01200-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-1665 PJH

v. ORDER RE MOTION TO

EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY

 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., DEADLINE

Defendants.

_______________________________/

This Document Also Relates to:

Unisys Corp. v. Hynix et al., C 06-2915 PJH

All American Semiconductor v. Hynix et al., C 07-1200 PJH

Edge Electronics v. Hynix et al., C 07-1207 PJH

Jaco Electronics v. Hynix et al., C 07-1212 PJH

DRAM Claims Liquidation Trust v. Hynix et al., C 07-1381 PJH

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to extend the fact discovery deadline, brought as

a motion to change time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3. Plaintiffs seek to extend the

current November 16, 2007 fact discovery deadline by ninety days, with a corresponding

ninety day extension of time for all other pretrial dates set forth in the June 25, 2007 pretrial

schedule. 

 Preliminarily, the court notes that a motion to change time pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 6-3 is not the proper procedural vehicle through which to obtain modification of a

pretrial scheduling order. As defendants point out in their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion,

modifications to existing pretrial schedules are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16 and Civil Local Rule 16-2(d), which requires that any and all motions seeking relief from

pretrial schedules be filed in compliance with Civil Local Rule 7. This does not necessarily

Case 4:07-cv-01200-PJH Document 83 Filed 09/24/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

require a motion filed pursuant to Local Rule 7-2; an administrative motion brought

pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 is acceptable. In view of this, and the fact that defendants

have had the opportunity to submit an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, the court construes

plaintiffs’ motion as a properly filed administrative motion. 

With respect to the relief plaintiffs seek, defendants are correct that plaintiffs are

required to show good cause for modification of the fact discovery deadline, based on their

diligence. Plaintiffs have made no showing of good cause, however, nor have they

demonstrated that, since entry of the current pretrial schedule merely three months ago,

they have proceeded diligently in pursuing discovery but will be unable to meet the fact

discovery deadline despite such efforts. Plaintiffs have also failed to demonstrate any

basis for the wholesale continuance of all remaining pretrial dates, as they propose. 

Nonetheless, and notwithstanding the lack of any good cause showing, the court

hereby grants plaintiffs a thirty day extension of the fact discovery deadline, to December

17, 2007. All remaining pretrial dates remain unchanged. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01200-PJH Document 83 Filed 09/24/07 Page 2 of 2