Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05831/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05831-17/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FORTINET, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SOPHOS, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-05831-EMC (DMR) 

ORDER RE: JOINT STATUS REPORT; 

ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 170, 176 

The parties have filed the joint discovery status report which the court previously ordered 

the parties to file. See Docket Nos. 170, 176. 

In the letter, Fortinet contends that the discovery produced by Sophos since the court’s 

previous order justifies a “targeted re-opening of fact discovery for Fortinet only, for the sole and 

limited purpose of discovery related to information produced pursuant to [Docket No. 170].” 

Docket No. 176 at 2-3. Specifically, Fortinet seeks additional depositions and additional written 

discovery, and believes it will take eight weeks to complete this discovery. Sophos is amenable to 

allowing Fortinet to conduct some further depositions, but believes additional written discovery is 

inappropriate. Sophos also does not agree that Fortinet’s additional discovery period should last 

eight weeks, as that “will make the existing case deadlines unworkable relative to such things as 

expert discovery and dispositive motions filing dates.” Docket No. 176 at 5. 

The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the scope and timing of discovery 

beyond the fact discovery cutoff. The parties may reach an agreement on this matter without court 

intervention so long as that agreement does not affect the remaining case management deadlines, 

e.g., the last day to hear dispositive motions or the pretrial conference. However, the parties must 

bring a motion before Judge Chen if they are seeking an extension of fact discovery that will affect 

Case 3:13-cv-05831-EMC Document 183 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

tho

Da

se case man

IT IS S

ated: July 20,

nagement de

SO ORDER

, 2015 

adlines. 

ED. 

2

____________

 Un

__________

Donna M. 

ited States M

_________

Ryu 

agistrate J

_______ 

udge 

Case 3:13-cv-05831-EMC Document 183 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 2