Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02543/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02543-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOSHIBA CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02543-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE 

DISCOVERY CUT-OFF FOR 

DEPOSITIONS

[Re: ECF 212]

Now before the Court is Defendant Toshiba Corporation’s (“Toshiba”) motion to extend 

the fact discovery deadline in this case. For the reasons set forth below, Toshiba’s motion to 

extend time is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. In deciding this motion, the Court 

did not consider Toshiba’s unauthorized reply brief, and now STRIKES it and the related 

administrative motion to seal. See Civ. L.R. 6-3(d) (granting the Court, not the parties, discretion 

to determine if additional briefing is necessary after a motion for extension of time and opposition 

are filed); ECF 222, 223. 

Fact discovery in this case is set to close on October 31, 2016. See ECF 46, at 2. Toshiba 

now seeks an extension of this deadline through November 30, 2016, to allow it to take eight 

already noticed depositions of third party witnesses: Juan Gonzalez III, Paul Wesela, Robert 

Ballow, Jeffrey Ng, Brian Marcucci, Xavier Pucel, Jim Walker, and Joseph Unsworth. Mot., ECF 

212. Toshiba claims that the witnesses are relevant to its case because they possess information 

regarding facts, circumstances, and documents upon which Tessera is relying to make its claim 

regarding the back royalties owed it by Toshiba. Id. at 5. Toshiba contends that it timely served 

deposition notices and attempted to serve notices for depositions prior to the fact discovery 

deadline, but cannot take the eight depositions it seeks to take by the deadline. Id. at 1. According 

to Toshiba, it would be “incredibly challenging” to coordinate the schedules of three separate 

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 228 Filed 10/26/16 Page 1 of 4
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

parties—Toshiba, Tessera, and the deponents—and granting the motion to extend time would 

reduce this burden. Id. at 2. Toshiba asserts that these depositions are highly relevant and may 

have substantial impact on disputed issues in this case, and that it would be substantially 

prejudiced if these depositions were precluded. Id. at 2, 4–5. Finally, Toshiba contends that 

Tessera would not be prejudiced were the Court to grant its motion. Id. at 5.

In opposition, Tessera argues that this Court should deny Toshiba’s motion because 

Toshiba failed to meet the requirements of Local Rule 6-3(a). Opp’n 1, 4–5. Civil Local Rule 6-3 

sets forth specific requirements for motions to change time. Specifically the moving party must 

file three documents: (1) a motion of no more than five pages, (2) a proposed order, and (3) a 

declaration. Civ. L.R. 6-3(a). The accompanying declaration must set forth “with particularity” 

the reasons for the enlargement of time, the efforts to obtain a stipulated time change, “the 

substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time,” any prior 

time modifications in the case, and the effect of the modifications on the schedule for the case. 

Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(1)–(6).

While Toshiba has indeed failed to comply with Local Rule 6-3, in that the declaration 

filed in support of its motion does not contain the required contents, the substance of Toshiba’s 

motion provides sufficient facts to assess the merits of the motion. Cf. Wilson v. Frito-Lay North, 

No. 12-cv-1586, 2015 WL 846546, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015) (denying motion to extend 

discovery because, among other reasons, plaintiffs did not provide any explanation of how (if at 

all) a denial of the motion would prejudice their case or why additional discovery was needed).

Denying the motion for procedural deficiencies under these circumstances would elevate form 

over substance. The Court will construe the motion as proper under the rules and consider the 

merits of Toshiba’s request. See Linder v. Bridge, No. 14-cv-3861, 2015 WL 1778608, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2015). 

Tessera also asks the Court to deny Toshiba’s motion because Toshiba was not diligent in 

seeking to complete discovery within the permissible timeframe, and thus has not shown good 

cause as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Opp’n 1–4. Under Rule 16, scheduling 

orders “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 228 Filed 10/26/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

16(b)(4). Pretrial scheduling orders may be modified if the dates scheduled “cannot reasonably be 

met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 

Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The focus of the good cause inquiry is “on the moving 

party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.” 

Id. “[C]entering the good cause analysis on the moving party’s diligence prevents parties from 

profiting from carelessness, unreasonability, or gamesmanship, while also not punishing parties 

for circumstances outside their control.” In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. C07-5944, 2014 WL 4954634, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014) (citing Orozco v. Midland Credit 

Mgmt. Inc., No. 12-cv-02585, 2013 WL 3941318, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2013)).

Five of the eight individuals identified by Toshiba—Ng, Wesela, Pucel, Gonzalez, and 

Marcucci—were first identified as individuals that might have relevant information in Toshiba’s 

October 14, 2015 initial disclosures. Opp’n 2; Ex. 1 to Meyer Decl. ISO Opp’n, ECF 219-2. 

Toshiba does not indicate when it first identified Ballow, Walker, or Unsworth as individuals that 

it might want to depose. 

Toshiba first served notices of deposition and subpoenas on the KPMG witnesses,

Gonzalez and Wesela, on June 23, 2016. Mot. 2. Toshiba attempted to schedule the depositions 

of Gonzalez and Wesela, but contends that they were uncooperative and that KPMG failed to 

respond to its communications regarding the depositions. Id. at 3. Gonzalez’s individual 

deposition, as well as the KPMG 30(b)(6) deposition, are now confirmed for October 27, 2016. 

Opp’n 3. The remainder of the individuals identified by Toshiba were served months later: 

Ballow and Ng, also at KPMG, were served notices of deposition on October 6, 2016. Mot. 3. 

Marcucci and Pucel, both former Tessera employees, were served third party notices and 

subpoenas on October 12, 2016. Mot. 3. Messrs. Marcucci and Pucel are currently noticed for 

depositions on October 24 and 26, 2016. Mot. 4. Walker and Unsworth, employees of Gartner, 

were served by email and by leaving the subpoena with someone of suitable age at the witnesses’ 

residences on October 6, 2016. Id. Toshiba offers no explanation for its delay in scheduling these 

depositions until the 11th hour. 

The Court finds that Toshiba’s motion adequately supports diligence as to Gonzalez and 

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 228 Filed 10/26/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Wesela, as Toshiba served them with notice of subpoenas for non-party witnesses several months 

before the close of discovery. However, Toshiba has not provided sufficient justification for its 

failure to serve the remaining desired deponents before the end of September 2016, only one 

month before the close of discovery. Toshiba itself admits that coordinating the schedules of three 

parties is “incredibly challenging,” and thus it should have known that it might not be possible to 

schedule and take six depositions in the last month of fact discovery. Additionally, there is no 

claim that these individuals were unknown to Toshiba before the subpoenas were served. Toshiba 

merely states that it “intended to explore Gonzalez’s and Wesela’s knowledge before seeking 

other discovery on the audits.” Mot. 3. Therefore, the Court finds that Toshiba could have served 

notice of these six depositions well before the close of discovery, but chose not to. Accordingly, 

the Court GRANTS Toshiba’s motion as to Gonzalez and Wesela, but DENIES Toshiba’s motion 

as to the rest without prejudice to the parties reaching an agreement otherwise. Toshiba shall have 

until November 15, 2016 to complete the depositions of Gonzalez and Wesela.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1

The Court recognizes that Toshiba may have already completed these depositions during the time 

its motion was pending. If that is the case, then no extension of the discovery cut off is authorized 

to accommodate other witnesses. 

Case 5:15-cv-02543-BLF Document 228 Filed 10/26/16 Page 4 of 4