Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05590-14/pdf.json

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MEDIMMUNE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PDL BIOPHARMA,

Defendant. /

No. C08-05590 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR AN ORDER

SHORTENING TIME

[Re: Docket No. 348]

Defendant PDL Biopharma, Inc. (“PDL”) moves for an order shortening time for

briefing and hearing on (a) its motion to amend its Patent L.R. 3-1 disclosures (Docket #334);

(b) its motion to compel discovery from plaintiff MedImmune, LLC (“MedImmune”) (Docket

#338), and (c) MedImmune’s motion for protective order (Docket #311). PDL asserts that an

expedited briefing and hearing schedule are necessary because the discovery at issue is critical

to expert reports due February 16, 2010 and rebuttal expert reports due March 2, 2010.

This court does not find good cause for an order shortening time. The record presented

indicates that PDL is now moving to compel discovery that was served nearly one year ago, as

well as discovery that was not served until shortly before the fact discovery cutoff. Expert

disclosure deadlines were set months ago. If PDL felt this discovery was critical to its case, it

surely would not have waited until near the close of the discovery period to request it — or until

after the fact discovery cutoff to move to compel it. Moreover, even under PDL’s proposed

*E-FILED 02-10-2010*

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 356 Filed 02/10/10 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

expedited schedule, the parties’ expert reports would be due before these motions could be fully

briefed and heard. Accordingly, the motion for an order shortening time is denied. The parties’

respective discovery motions will be heard on March 16, 2010, 10:00 a.m. Briefing shall

proceed in accordance with a normal 35-day calendar under the court’s Civil Local Rules.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

February 10, 2010

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 356 Filed 02/10/10 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

5:08-cv-05590-JF Notice electronically mailed to: 

Aaron P. Maurer amaurer@wc.com 

Aaron Y Huang aaron.huang@weil.com 

Dana K Powers dana.powers@weil.com 

David Isaac Berl dberl@wc.com 

David Isaac Gindler DGindler@Irell.com, dlieberman@irell.com 

Gerson Avery Zweifach gzweifach@wc.com 

Jeffrey E. Faucette jfaucette@tcolaw.com, abradley@tcolaw.com, cdunbar@tcolaw.com,

cwoodrich@tcolaw.com 

Jessamyn Sheli Berniker jberniker@wc.com 

Paul B. Gaffney pgaffney@wc.com 

Raymond Angelo LaMagna rlamagna@irell.com 

Vernon Michael Winters vern.winters@weil.com, nettie.asiasi@weil.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:08-cv-05590-JF Document 356 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 3