Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01804/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01804-0/pdf.json

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMY ABDOU, M.D., an

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a

California corporation,

Defendant. _______________________________

ALPHATEC SPINE, INC., a

California corporation,

Counterclaim Plaintiff,

v.

SAMY ABDOU, M.D., an

individual,

Counterclaim Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 12cv1804 BEN(RBB)

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS TO

COMPEL REGARDING DISCOVERY

DISPUTES [ECF NO. 58]

The Case Management Conference Order in this case states that

"[a]ll disputes concerning discovery shall be brought to the

attention of the Magistrate Judge no later than thirty (30) days

following the date upon which the event giving rise to the dispute

occurred." (Case Management Conference Order 13, ECF No. 27.) 

1 12cv1804 BEN(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 65 Filed 01/29/14 Page 1 of 4
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

On December 18, 2013, Defendant Alphatec Spine, Inc. requested

a hearing date for a motion to compel Plaintiff to supplement

certain interrogatory responses. (See Jt. Mot. Leave File 2, ECF

No. 58.) Plaintiff Abdou served responses and objections to

Defendant's first and second sets of interrogatories on May 28 and

June 17, 2013. (Id.) Defendant Alphatec served its responses and

objections to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories on June 25,

2013. (Id.) Because the motion sought to address interrogatories

objected to in May and June, Defendant was advised that it would

need to obtain relief from the thirty-day time limit contained in

the Case Management Conference Order. (See id.) 

On January 7, 2014, Plaintiff Samy Abdou, M.D., and Defendant

Alphatec Spine, Inc., filed a Joint Motion for Leave to File

Motions to Compel Regarding Discovery Disputes [ECF No. 58]. The

Joint Motion states that "the parties have reached an agreement to

supplement their interrogatory responses by January 24, 2014." 

(Id. at 3.) In the event that they are dissatisfied with the

supplemental responses, Plaintiff and Defendant seek leave to file

a motion to compel by February 24, 2014, which is thirty days from

the date set for their supplemental responses. 

More than six months ago, the underlying interrogatories were

objected to by the responding party –- on May 13, June 17, and June

25, 2013. (Id. at 2.) The Plaintiff and Defendant do not maintain

that they were attempting to resolve their disputes during this

multi-month period. Neither party contacted the Court to extend

the deadline for bringing motions to compel discovery. But on

December 2, 2013, it became clear to Plaintiff and Defendant that

they had reached an impasse. (See id.) 

2 12cv1804 BEN(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 65 Filed 01/29/14 Page 2 of 4
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

The parties have not accounted for the time between serving

objections to interrogatories and filing their Joint Motion. The

thirty-day periods for bringing their respective discovery disputes

to the attention of the Court have long passed. The subsequent

agreement to provide supplemental interrogatory answers was made

without reference to the expired deadlines for bringing motions to

compel. Without prior court approval, the parties cannot cure the

passage of the deadlines by tying new deadlines for motions to

compel to the service of Plaintiff's and Defendant's supplemental

discovery responses. Supplemental responses do not reinstate

lapsed deadlines.

In effect, Plaintiff and Defendant are seeking to modify the

Case Management Conference Order to permit them to bring motions to

compel long after discovery objections had been served. They

maintain that they did not believe the disputes were "ripe" until

an impasse was reached. (Id.) On other occasions, this Court has

extended the thirty-day deadline for bringing a motion to compel

while the parties attempted to resolve their discovery disputes. 

See Barcel USA, LLC v. Baja Distributors, Inc., Case No. 12-cv1720-DMS-RBB (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2013) (granting extension of

thirty-day period to bring a motion to compel discovery while

counsel engaged in "meet and confer" sessions). A similar request

was not made here. Alternatively, if the parties were uncertain as

to the time for bringing a motion to compel, they could have sought

clarification from the Court. That was not done. 

The party seeking to modify deadlines bears the burden of

showing that despite its diligence, the deadlines cannot reasonably

be met. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 95 F.2d 604, 609

3 12cv1804 BEN(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 65 Filed 01/29/14 Page 3 of 4
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

(9th Cir. 1992). The Joint Motion for Leave to File Motions to

Compel does not establish that counsel have worked diligently since

May and June of 2013 to resolve their discovery disputes. If a

party seeking to amend the scheduling order "was not diligent, the

inquiry should end." Id. On this basis alone, the Joint Motion is

DENIED. 

Assuming the parties did not believe that the thirty-day

period for bringing a motion to compel began to run until they

reached an impasse, (see Joint Mot. Leave File Mots. Compel 2, ECF

No. 58), their Joint Motion was not filed until January 7, 2014,

thirty-five days after Abdou's December 2, 2013 letter. For this

additional reason, the Joint Motion [ECF No. 58] is DENIED.

DATED: January 29, 2014 _____________________________

Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Benitez

All Parties of Record

 

I:\Chambers Brooks\CASES\ABDOU1804\Order Den. Joint Mot.wpd 4 12cv1804 BEN(RBB)

Case 3:12-cv-01804-BEN-RBB Document 65 Filed 01/29/14 Page 4 of 4