Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02291/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02291-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEED LIGHTING DESIGN CO, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HOME DEPOT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-2291 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 66]

On June 21, 2005, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the above-captioned

matter. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was noticed for a July 26, 2005 hearing date. On

June 23, 2005, after being informed by the Court that the July 26, 2005 hearing date was not available,

Defendants filed an ex parte application requesting that the Court allow Defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment to be heard on July 26, 2005. On June 28, 2005, the Court granted Defendants' ex parte

application.

Pursuant to the Court's standing orders, Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary

Judgment was due on July 5, 2005. However, on July 5, 2005, instead of filing an opposition, Plaintiff

submitted an ex parte application requesting a one-week extension of time to file the opposition brief

Case 4:04-cv-02291-SBA Document 67 Filed 07/05/05 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

[Docket No. 66]. In the ex parte application, Plaintiff states that it cannot comply with the July 5, 2005

deadline because it did not begin preparing its opposition brief until June 28, 2005.

This is the fourth time Plaintiff has sought leave of Court to extend a deadline relating to this case [see

Docket Nos. 32, 40, 51]. In the June 16, 2005 Order denying Plaintiff's third request for an extension of the

discovery deadline, the Court observed that Plaintiff's failure to complete its discovery within the requisite

period of time was Plaintiff's own fault. Similarly, it appears that Plaintiff's failure to timely prepare an

opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which has now been in Plaintiff's possession fortwo

weeks, is due to Plaintiff's own lack ofdiligence. In light of the fact that Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply

with this Court's deadlines, Plaintiff's belief that it did not have to "expend time and effort in an opposition until

it was clear the motion would be heard" is inexcusable. Significantly, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not

request an extension of time once it learned that the hearing would take place on July 26, 2005, but instead

waited until the date its opposition was due. The Court also notes that Plaintiff did not file an opposition to

Defendants' ex parte request for a July 26, 2005 hearing and, in fact, expressly informed Defendants on June

23, 2005 that Plaintiff would not oppose Defendants' request for a July 26, 2005 hearing date. See Decl. of

Richard Darwin I.S.O. Defs' Ex Parte App. at ¶ 5. 

As the Court reminded Plaintiff in its June 16, 2005 Order, this matter has been pending since June

2004 and is set for a September 26, 2005 trial. The motion cut-off deadline is August 2, 2005. Given the

impending motion cut-off deadline and trial date, Plaintiff is expected to be in the position to readily respond

to any dispositive motions filed by the Defendants. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's ex parte application for a seven-day extension of time

to file its opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 66] is DENIED. However,

the Court hereby modifies the briefing schedule as follows:

1. Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on or before

July 7, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.

2. Defendants may file a reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment on or before

July 14, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.

Case 4:04-cv-02291-SBA Document 67 Filed 07/05/05 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

The Court expressly reminds Plaintiff that, pursuant to the Court's standing orders, any

failure to file anoppositionto the MotionforSummary Judgment shall be construed as a consent to

the granting of that Motion. Additionally, both parties are reminded that the Court is not inclined

to grant any further extensions of time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/

 

Dated: July 5, 2005 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02291-SBA Document 67 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 3