Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01148/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAPTIX, INC. 

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14cv1148-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

SHORTEN TIME AND GRANTING

MOTION TO STRIKE

[ECF NO. 4, 7]

On May 6, 2014, Plaintiff Adaptix, Inc. (“Adaptix”) filed a motion for an order

“compelling third party Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”), subpoenaed by Adaptix in [] cases

before the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) (the “NDCA cases”), to immediately make

available for inspection by Adaptix of the source code related to the instrumentalities

accused against the Defendants in the NDCA cases and identified by Adaptix to Qualcomm

and during multiple meet-and-confers with Qualcomm concerning the ongoing source code

inspections conducted by Adaptix.” ECF No. 1 at 2. On May 9, 2014, the Court issued a

briefing schedule ordering Qualcomm to file any opposition to Adaptix’s motion on or before

May 23, 2014 and Adaptix to file a reply, if any, on or before May 30, 2014. ECF No. 3. The

Court stated that “[u]pon completion of the briefing the Court will take the matter under

submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d) and no personal appearances will be

required.” Id. (emphasis in original). 

-1- 14CV1148-LAB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-01148-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 3
 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

On May 12, 2014, Adaptix filed a motion to shorten time and expedite its motion to

compel source code. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff requests that Qualcomm be ordered to file its

opposition on or before May 16, 2014 and that it file a reply on or before May 19, 2014. Id.

at 3. In support, Adaptix states that “[i]n view of the outstanding (i) June 2, 2014 “cut

off for fact discovery ... extended [by the NDCA], but only for the purpose of taking

depositions and allowing Adaptix to review Qualcomm’s source code”(Lipman Decl.,

1 ¶ 4) (emphases added), (ii) June 27, 2014 NDCA deadline for Expert Witness Reports

(Id., ¶ 5), (iii) May 23, 2014 deadline set in the Court’s May 9th Order for Qualcomm’s

opposition to Adaptix’s Compel Motion, (iv) Adaptix’s Reply on or before May 30, 2014,

and (v) the Court to take the “matter under submission” “[u]pon completion of the briefing,”

will almost certainly come too late for Adaptix in light of the NDCA deadlines.” Id. at 2-3

(emphasis in original).

On May 13, 2014, Qualcomm filed an opposition to Adaptix’s motion. ECF No. 6. 

Qualcomm contends that Adaptix’s need for expedited relief “is a result of its own lack of

diligence in pursuing discovery from Qualcomm and in underestimating the complexities

associated with the production of Qualcomm’s source code.” Id. at 2. Qualcomm notes that

discovery has been open in the underlying cases since July 24, 2013 and Adaptix did not

subpoena Qualcomm until February 11, 2014. Id. Qualcomm contends that it has been

“diligent and cooperative in producing the relevant source code” and that it “is working

diligently to complete its source code production and render the underlying motion to

compel moot before its opposition is due on May 23, 2014.” Id. at 2-4.

After considering the motion and opposition, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to

shorten time and expedite its motion to compel source code.

On May 14, 2014, Qualcomm filed a motion to strike the declaration of David A. Kays

in support of Qualcomm’s opposition to Adaptix’s motion to shorten time. ECF No. 7. 

Qualcomm seeks an order from the Court “striking the Kays Declaration, removing the image

of the Kays Declaration from docket for this case on the ECF system and allowing Qualcomm

to file a corrected Kays Declaration.” Id. at 2. In support, Qualcomm states that “certain

-2- 14CV1148-LAB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-01148-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 05/15/14 Page 2 of 3
 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

exhibits attached thereto contain confidential information that should not have been filed.” 

Id.

Good cause appearing, Qualcomm’s motion is GRANTED. David A. Kays declaration

in support of Qualcomm’s opposition to Adaptix’s motion to shorten time [ECF No. 6-1] is

ORDERED TO BE STRICKEN from the docket. Qualcomm may file a corrected

declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 15, 2014

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

-3- 14CV1148-LAB(BLM)

Case 3:14-cv-01148-LAB-BLM Document 8 Filed 05/15/14 Page 3 of 3