Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02291/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02291-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

SEED LIGHTING DESIGN CO, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HOME DEPOT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-2291 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 51]

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Seed Lighting Design Co, Ltd.'s June 10, 2005 ex parte

application to extend factual discovery [Docket No. 51]. Plaintiff's ex parte application is opposed by

Defendants Home Depot, Trend Lighting Corp., and Hampton Bay Fan & LightingCompany ("Defendants")

[Docket No. 53]. 

Pursuant to the May 20, 2005 Order for Pretrial Preparation, the parties' current factual discovery

deadline is June 17, 2005. Plaintiff requests that the fact discovery deadline be continued to July 17, 2005

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b). Plaintiff also requests that the Court extend the expert discovery deadline

to an unspecified date "beyond May 31, 2005." Plaintiff alleges the following facts in support of its request:

(1) Plaintiff has been unable to take the deposition ofHome Depot despite two previous attempts to notice the

Case 4:04-cv-02291-SBA Document 56 Filed 06/16/05 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

1Defendants also object to Plaintiff's ex parte application on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to

comply with Civil Local Rule 7-10. Although the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to cite to Civil Local

Rule 7-10 in the instant application, the Court also notes that Defendants' objection is fairly disingenuous in

light of the fact that Defendants told Plaintiff to file the instant ex parte request. See Declaration of Lael D.

Beloate at ¶ 23. Further, Defendants have not demonstrated that they have been prejudiced, in any way,

by Plaintiff's failure to abide by the technical procedures of the Civil Local Rules. Indeed, Defendants were

consulted prior to the filing of the instant application and were able to file a timely response. 

2

deposition because the partieswere notable to agree upon a mutually available date;(2) Defendants have failed

to produce documents that Plaintiff believes are responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests; and (3) the parties

have thus far been unable to agree on available dates for the depositions of Defendants' designated experts.

Defendants oppose Plaintiff'srequest on the grounds that no further extensions of time are warranted,

since Plaintifffailed to timely serve its written discovery despite two previous extensions granted by this Court.1

Despite Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's request, however, Defendants state that they have agreed to

produce Home Depot and the two designated experts for deposition, even after the June 17, 2005 discovery

deadline. 

Having considered the papers submitted by both parties, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown

good cause warranting an extension of the factual discovery deadline to July 17, 2005 or an extension of the

expert discovery deadline to an unspecified time in the future. Indeed, this Court already granted Plaintiff a

two-month extension of time within which to complete its discovery. Plaintiff's failure to complete discovery

consistent with the originalscheduling order, or during the additional period provided by the prior extension,

or to compelfurther discovery responses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37, is its own fault.

However, since Defendants have agreed to make Home Depot and its two experts available for deposition,

the Court hereby grants Plaintiff leave to take these three depositions after the June 17, 2005 deadline.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff'srequest to extend the fact discovery deadline to July 17,

2005 and the expert discovery deadline to an unspecified time in the future is DENIED. However, Plaintiff is

hereby granted leave to depose Home Depot and Defendants' two designated experts after the fact and expert

discovery deadlines, such that the depositions conclude on or before July 15, 2005. No further discovery may

be conducted by either party without priorleave of Court. The Court reminds the partiesthatthis matter

Case 4:04-cv-02291-SBA Document 56 Filed 06/16/05 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

has been pending since June 2004 and is set fora September26, 2005 trial. Accordingly, the Court

is notinclinedto grant any furtherextensions relating to discovery. Both parties are alsoreminded

of their obligation to engage in a meaningful meet-and-confer prior to bringing matters to the

attention of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Dated: 6-16-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02291-SBA Document 56 Filed 06/16/05 Page 3 of 3