Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00971-21/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

 Defendant and plaintiff stipulated to the entry of the 1

protective order at issue, which was filed on November 15, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALPHALON CORPORATION, NO. CIV.S-05-0971 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

MEYER CORPORATION U.S.,

Defendant.

_________________________/

This matter is before the court on defendant Meyer

Corporation’s ex parte application for order shortening time. (Doc.

no. 179.) Defendant seeks leave to notice for hearing before the

undersigned a renewed motion to modify a protective order.1

Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the application; however,

plaintiff’s counsel has indicated that they are opposed to the

granting of the application to a member of the court’s staff by way

of telephone. The court’s docket indicates that defendant

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 183 Filed 09/08/06 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

 In this regard, although discovery in this case is closed, the 2

district judge instructed that “the time of defendant’s renewed

motion should not preclude the motion from being heard.” (Order

filed August 25, 2006, at 5.)

2

electronically filed its application last night, September 7, 2006,

at 8:32 p.m. Trial is scheduled to commence on Tuesday, September

12, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a court to hear

a motion on shortened time “for cause shown.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Defendant has failed to demonstrate the required good cause. On July

5, 2006, the undersigned denied defendant’s initial motion to modify

the protective order. On August 25, 2006, the assigned district

judge denied defendant’s request for reconsideration of that order. 

The request for reconsideration was denied without prejudice to the

filing of a renewed motion to modify the protective order to be heard

by the undersigned. Despite that invitation, defendant waited 2

fourteen days, until the eve of trial, before renewing their motion. 

Such a delay does not amount to “cause shown.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d);

see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th

Cir. 1992)(“Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers

the diligence of the party seeking the amendment.”); Merritt-Chapman

& Scott Corp. v. Frazier, 289 F.2d 849, 856 n.10 (9th Cir.

1961)(recognizing in dicta that delay is a consideration in

evaluating “cause shown”).

The application for order shortening time before the court

also fails to comply with the Local Rules. Specifically, the

application does not contain any explanation as to “the failure of

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 183 Filed 09/08/06 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

 Defendant’s motion offers no discussion of the legal standards 3

applicable to a motion to modify a protective order.

 The court understands that the documents have been listed in 4

the Final Pretrial Order as trial exhibits to be used by the parties. 

Nonetheless, the nature of the various documents and the role they

may play at trial was not addressed by defendant in their moving

papers nor is it at all clear to the undersigned.

3

counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order

from other counsel or parties in the action.” L.R. 6-144(e).

Finally, looking at the substance of the renewed motion to

modify the protective order (Doc. no. 178), the undersigned finds no

improvement from defendant’s previous showing made in support of the 

initial attempt to modify the protective order. In order to justify

modifying the protective order, Meyer Corporation would need to

demonstrate a reasonable need for showing the protected documents to

its four employees. See Stipulated Protective Order filed November

15, 2005 at 7 (“[t]he burden of persuasion in any such challenge

proceeding shall be on the Designating Party”); see also Int’l Ins.

Co. v. Beckman Indus., Inc., 966 F.2d 470, 475 (9th Cir. 1992);

Verizon Cal., Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, L.P., 214

F.R.D. 583, 586 (C.D. Cal. 2003). However, despite the court’s 3

invitation to take a third bite at the apple, defendant Meyer

Corporation has mustered only a vague and conclusory assertion that

it needs to show scores of protected documents to its employees “to

allow Meyer to adequately prepare its four key witnesses ... for the

quickly approaching trial.” (Renewed Mot. filed Sept. 7, 2006, at

3.) This perfunctory assertion fails to demonstrate a reasonable

need for disclosing the materials in question. For these reasons, 4

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 183 Filed 09/08/06 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

4

it appears that the motion to modify the protective order lacks merit

in any event.

For these reasons, defendant’s application for order

shortening time is DENIED and the renewed motion for protective order

will not be placed on the court’s calendar.

DATED: September 8, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.civil\calphalon.ost.po.deny.

Case 2:05-cv-00971-WBS -DAD Document 183 Filed 09/08/06 Page 4 of 4