Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR LTD., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-06-0162 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFERRED PORTION

OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL

PREPARATION ORDER

By order filed March 20, 2007, the Court referred plaintiff’s Motion for Modification of

Pretrial Preparation Order, filed March 15, 2007, to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, for

purposes of determining whether good cause exists to extend the discovery deadlines, and,

if so, to reset the discovery deadlines. By the same order, the Court deferred ruling on

plaintiff’s motion, to the extent plaintiff also sought to continue other pretrial deadlines and

dates, as well as the trial date, until after Magistrate Judge Spero had ruled on plaintiff’s

request to extend the discovery deadlines.

By order filed March 26, 2007, Magistrate Judge Spero found sufficient cause

existed to extend by ten days the non-expert discovery cutoff, for the limited purpose of

taking depositions, and to extend by ten days the deadline for initial expert disclosures; in

all other respects, plaintiff’s request to extend discovery deadlines was denied. Magistrate

Judge Spero further noted that because, under the deadlines set in his order of March 26,

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 204 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2007, all discovery would still be completed by the June 1, 2007 deadline set in this Court’s

order dated January 22, 2007, “the date for dispositive motions and trial may remain the

same.” (See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Pl.’s Mot. for Modification of

Pretrial Preparation Order at 2:11-12.)

Having reviewed plaintiff’s motion, defendant’s opposition thereto, and Magistrate

Judge Spero’s order of March 26, 2007, the Court hereby DENIES the deferred portion of

plaintiff’s motion, for the reason that good cause does not exist to extend the deadline to

file dispositive motions or to continue the pretrial conference and trial dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 204 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 2