Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ELANTECH DEVICES CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SYNAPTICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-01839 PVT

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST

TO SHORTEN TIME; AND

ORDER STAYING DEPOSITION OF FRANCIS

LEE PENDING RULING ON MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

On August 19, 2008, the parties filed a stipulated request for an order shortening time for

briefing and hearing Synaptics’ motion for protective order. Based on the papers submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulated request to shorten time is DENIED, and the

deposition of Francis Lee is STAYED pending resolution of the underlying motion for protective

order. There is plenty of time to hear the motion on a regularly noticed schedule, and for the

deposition to take place if warranted, prior to the discovery cut-off. Neither party has shown why

the deposition cannot be scheduled for a later date, and thus there is no good cause for an order

shortening time.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than August 29, 2008, counsel for Elantech and

Synaptics shall meet and confer in person regarding this deposition.

The court is not impressed with what appears to be a tit for tat discovery tactic. If

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 406 Filed 08/21/08 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

Because Synaptics did not put a hearing date that complies with Local Rule 7-2(a) on 1

the underlying motion, upon denial of the motion to shorten time the motion is not on calendar for any

hearing date. The better practice is to notice the underlying motion in compliance with Local Rule

7-2(a), and put the proposed shortened time hearing date only in the motion to shorten time.

ORDER, page 2

Elantech genuinely believes Mr. Lee has relevant first hand knowledge, it should be able to

articulate the nature of that knowledge during the meet and confer. If the meet and confer is

unsuccessful, Synaptics may re-notice its motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-(2)(a).

1

Dated: 8/21/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 406 Filed 08/21/08 Page 2 of 2