Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04535/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04535-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARSAPE S.A.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

JDS Uniphase Corporation,

Defendant(s). /

NO. C 03-04535 JW 

ORDER GRANTING ARSAPE’S

APPLICATION TO CONTINUE

HEARING DATE ON JDSU’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant JDS Uniphase Corporation (“JDSU”) filed a motion for summary judgment, or in

the alternative, partial summary judgment, and noticed the motion for hearing on February 13, 2006. 

Plaintiff Arsape S.A. (“Arsape”) filed an opposition as well as a separate application “for an order

refusing or continuing the hearing date on JDSU’s motion for summary judgment, or in the

alternative, partial summary judgment, on the grounds that further discovery is required.” 

Arsape contends that additional discovery is necessary to determine the course of dealings between

the parties. More specifically, Arsape seeks discovery to determine what, if any, terms and

conditions were accepted by DMT; to determine the meaning of the “Confirmation Only” stamp;

and to evaluate the competency of a witness those testimony has been presented to the Court. JDSU

opposes any continuance of the February 13, 2006 hearing date. The Court finds that a continuance

is warranted pursuant to Rule 56(f), Fed.R.Civ.P., and accordingly Arsape’s application is granted.

Rule 56(f), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that the district court may refuse or continue a summary

judgment motion when it appears “from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party

cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party’s opposition.” A

Case 5:03-cv-04535-JW Document 172 Filed 02/03/06 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

party seeking Rule 56(f) relief must satisfy two requirements. First, “Rule 56(f) requires affidavits

setting forth the particular facts expected from the movant’s discovery.” Brae Transp., Inc., v.

Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1986). Second, the party seeking a continuance

or refusal must specify “how those facts would preclude summary judgment,” Garrett v. City and

County of S.F., 818 F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987). Without fulfilling these two requirements, the

summary judgment motion will proceed, and Rule 56(f) relief is not proper. See In re Silicon

Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 989 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Brae Transp., 790 F.2d at 1445)

(“Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 56(f) is a proper ground for denying discovery

and proceeding to summary judgment”). Once those two requirements are satisfied, then the motion

should not be granted if the moving party can show that additional discovery would have precluded

summary judgment. See Qualls v. Blue Cross of California, 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994).

In this case, Arsape makes the bare minimum showing to satisfy the two requirements. 

Arsape expects to proceed with discovery to further elucidate the parties’ course of dealings. 

Arsape also contends that it must go forward with Mr. Erskine’s deposition so that he can

authenticate documents relevant to the summary judgment motion. Arsape’s discovery is apparently

intended to further bolster its contention that the parties entered into an oral contract before

transmittal of the written purchase orders, and thereby defeat JDSU’s motion. In addition, Arsape

intends to take further discovery regarding Mr. Donovan’s health. 

Therefore, Arsape’s application is granted. The parties shall complete all discovery by May

3, 2006, as is required by the Scheduling Order. Arsape shall file and serve any supplemental

briefing and evidence in opposition to JDSU’s motion no later than May 10, 2006; JDSU shall file

and serve any response to the supplemental submissions no later than May 17, 2006. The motion for

summary judgment is continued from February 13, 2006 to June 5, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

Dated: February 3, 2006

03cv4535rule56f

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04535-JW Document 172 Filed 02/03/06 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Gaylord A. Virden gavyls62@msn.com

Jeffrey J. Lederman jlederman@winston.com

Margaret Alexandra Ziemianek mziemianek@wsnlaw.com

Nicole P. Dogwill ndogwill@winston.com

William A. Wineberg wineb@wsnlaw.com

Dated: February 3, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-04535-JW Document 172 Filed 02/03/06 Page 3 of 3