Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USE TECHNO CORPORTATION AND

FUTOSHI MATSUYAMA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

KENKO USA, Inc., et.al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-02754 EDL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME TO

HEAR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

EXTEND THE TIME TO OPPOSE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING

MOTION TO EXTEND

On July 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Shorten Time to Hear Plaintiff’s Motion to

Extend Time to Oppose Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 27, 2007, Defendants

filed an opposition to the Motion to Shorten Time. 

Because Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing of good cause, the Court hereby denies

the motion to shorten time. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time. If Plaintiff

believes that it needs additional discovery before filing its opposition to certain portions of

Defendants’ summary judgment motion, the proper approach is to utilize the procedure in Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). See California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998)

(holding that the party seeking relief under Rule 56(f) “must show (1) that they have set forth in

affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts

sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the summary judgment

motion.”). However, any portions of the motion for summary judgment that Plaintiff can oppose

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 120 Filed 07/29/07 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

without additional discovery should be addressed on the existing briefing schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 120 Filed 07/29/07 Page 2 of 2