Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STORUS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 06-2454 MMC (MEJ)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

REQUEST TO EXTEND DISCOVERY

DEADLINE

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery letter regarding Defendants' request to

extend the discovery deadline, filed November 27, 2007. (Doc. #157.) In the letter, Defendants

provide two reasons for their request. The first reason is that Defendants have not completed the

depositions of Scott Kaminski and the 30(b)(6) witness for the person most knowledgeable at Storus

Corporation. However, the failure to complete these depositions appears to be due to Defendants'

failure to follow through in scheduling them, despite two previous discovery extensions from Judge

Chesney. Failure to follow through in scheduling is not a compelling reason to extend discovery a

third time. The second reason is that Defendants wish to commission an independent third party to

undertake a purchaser survey to prove when a design change occurred. As Defendants do not state

why they could not commission the survey prior to the close of discovery, this is also not a

compelling reason to allow further discovery. Accordingly, Defendants request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 160 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 1