Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05424/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05424-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark 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

1 Plaintiff’s motion was filed on February 23, 2006 pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-11 which governs “miscellaneous administrative matters.” The record indicates that

the motion papers were electronically served and hand delivered to defendants that same day;

and, under Civil Local Rule 7-11, defendants’ opposition was to have been filed by February

28, 2006. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(b); FED.R.CIV.P. 6(a). Plaintiff argues that defendants’

opposition was too late because it was not filed until March 1, 2006. Nevertheless, this court

is not convinced that the instant motion presents a “miscellaneous administrative matter,”

and it has accepted and considered defendants’ opposition.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNCREST ENTERPRISE and YI-LING

CHEN a/k/a EILEEN CHEN,

Defendants. /

No. C03-05424 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL AND TO

VACATE HEARING DATE

[Re: Docket No. 115]

On February 21, 2006, defendants Suncrest Enterprise and Yi-Ling Chen filed a motion

to compel a further Fed.R.Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of plaintiff Microsoft and purported to

notice that motion for a March 28, 2006 hearing.

Presently before this court is plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ motion to compel as

untimely and to vacate the March 28, 2006 hearing. Defendants oppose the motion.1

 Having

considered the papers filed by the parties, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to strike.

Pursuant to the case management schedule set by the District Court, discovery (fact and

expert) closed on November 14, 2005. Accordingly, the last day to move to compel discovery

*E-FILED ON 3/2/06*

Case 5:03-cv-05424-JF Document 127 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 3
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

was November 23, 2005, and defendants’ February 21, 2006 motion to compel is untimely. See

Civ. L. R. 26-2 (“Where the Court has set a single discovery cut-off for both fact and expert

discovery, no motions to compel discovery may be filed more than 7 court days after the

discovery cut-off.”).

Defendants argue that Civil Local Rule 26-2 requires discovery motions to be filed

within seven days of the discovery cutoff “unless otherwise ordered.” See CIV. L.R. 26-2. They

point out that the District Court recently granted the parties’ stipulated request to extend the

“Motion Hearing Cut-off” to March 31, 2006. Defendants contend that this March 31, 2006

deadline applies to all motions, including motions to compel discovery. However, over the last

six months, the parties filed several stipulations to extend certain case management deadlines –

an initial stipulation followed by two requests asking for a further extension of those deadlines. 

While it is true that the parties’ last two stipulations refer only to a “Motion Hearing Cut-off,”

the parties’ first stipulation shows that they considered this deadline to be a “Dispositive

Motion Hearing Cut-off.” (See Docket Nos. 46, 92, 111).

In any event, the record presented indicates that defendants deposed Microsoft on

November 10, 2005, and that defense counsel was well aware several months ago of the

deadline for filing discovery motions. (See Dugdale Decl., Ex. A). The time for moving to

compel discovery has long since passed, both parties have filed summary judgment motions

which are set to be heard by the District Court on March 31, 2006, and defendants have not

justified their failure to timely move to compel.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ untimely motion to

compel is GRANTED, and the March 28, 2006 hearing is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

March 2, 2006

Case 5:03-cv-05424-JF Document 127 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5:03-cv-5424 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

John C. Gorman jgorman@gormanmiller.com 

Craig Alan Hansen chansen@gormanmiller.com 

Andrew K. Jacobson andy@bayoaklaw.com 

Shawn T. Leuthold leuthold@aol.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:03-cv-05424-JF Document 127 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 of 3