Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01414/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01414-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Copyright Infringement

---

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

PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

VMWARE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01414-HSG (DMR)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 102

The fact discovery cut-off in this matter was April 29, 2016. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

37-3, “no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery 

cut-off.” At the parties’ joint request, the court extended the motion to compel deadline to May 

20, 2016. [Docket No. 97.] On June 9, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter in which 

Defendant VMware, Inc. moves to compel Plaintiff Phoenix Technologies Ltd. (“Phoenix”) to 

supplement four interrogatory responses. [Docket No. 102.] VMWare’s motion is thus three 

weeks late. 

VMWare asserts that it agreed not to raise Phoenix’s allegedly deficient interrogatory 

responses by the May 20, 2016 extended deadline based on Phoenix’s representation that it would 

supplement its responses. Phoenix did supplement its responses, but VMWare believes they are 

still deficient. By deciding to postpone taking action, especially after receiving a two-week 

extension, VMWare assumed the risk that the court would deny any late-filed motion as untimely.

VMWare’s motion is denied as untimely. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01414-HSG Document 105 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 1