Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05967/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05967-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E-PASS TECHNOLOGIES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MOSES & SINGER, LLP, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-09-5967 EMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

(Docket No. 19)

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to change time. Defendants ask

that the Court extend the time for Defendants to respond to the complaint from February 9, 2010, to

April 7, 2010. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby

DENIES Defendants’ motion.

Defendants have asked for an extension of time so that this Court may first hear and rule on a

motion to stay proceedings that Defendants intend to file shortly. Defendants’ request for a stay will

be predicated on the fact that there is an ongoing state court action involving the same parties and

claims. (Currently, that action is on appeal.) While the Court is not unsympathetic to Defendants’

position -- i.e., that it is burdensome and inefficient for Defendants to litigate the same basic case in

two different fora -- in the end it is not persuaded that requiring Defendants to answer the complaint

before the resolution of the anticipated motion to stay would cause substantial harm or prejudice to

Defendants. See Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(3) (requiring a party asking for a time change to identify the

substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the court did not change time). In their papers,

Defendants argue that they would be prejudiced because, if the Court does decide to stay this case,

Case 3:09-cv-05967-EMC Document 25 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 2
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

then they “will have been unfairly required to reveal their response to the federal court action,

including their litigation strategy and affirmative defenses.” Mot. at 1. But this argument is not

convincing for several reasons. First, at this juncture, the merits of the motion to stay are not clear. 

No briefing has been filed on the issue. Second, requiring Defendants to file an answer does not

reveal any work product. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ request that their answer be delayed for

approximately 60 days. However, the Court shall give Defendants an additional 20 days to respond

to the complaint to ensure that they have sufficient time to make a response and to ensure that the

timing of this order does not prejudice Defendants.

This order disposes of Docket No. 19.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05967-EMC Document 25 Filed 02/05/10 Page 2 of 2