Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03511/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03511-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed August 4, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC., 

a Delaware corporation; and 

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS (ROI) Ltd., its 

Republic of Ireland subsidiary, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

724 SOLUTIONS (US) INC., a Delaware 

corporation; and 724 SOLUTIONS 

SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C09-03511 RS (HRL) 

ORDER RE: PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO 

COMPEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS 

[Re: Docket Nos. 197, 198, 202, 204, 211, 

212, 214, 215 & 217] 

During the past week, the parties have inundated the Court with motions to compel and 

associated administrative motions. Openwave re-noticed two motions to compel for hearing on 

August 17 and filed administrative motions to allow it to file “supplemental” briefs, purportedly to 

“update” the Court as to the status of the disputes because many of the issues addressed in the 

original motions have apparently been resolved.1

 (Docket Nos. 197, 198, 214 & 215). It also filed a 

new motion to compel a deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6) and noticed it for hearing on September 7. 

(Docket No. 212.) On the other side, 724 Solutions filed a “renewed” motion to compel and an 

 

1

 The Court notes that Openwave’s re-noticed its motion to compel within the standard 35-day 

period (see Civil Local Rule 7-3) but did not file a motion to shorten time. 

Case 5:09-cv-03511-RS Document 218 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

administrative motion for the Court to hear its motion on shortened time on August 31. (Docket 

Nos. 202 & 204.) The parties oppose each other’s administrative motions.2

Upon review of the moving papers, the Court does not find good cause to grant either party’s 

requests. Given the amount of time that has elapsed since Openwave originally filed its motions, 

the Court believes that new briefs — not simply “supplemental” ones — would best clarify any 

remaining disputed issues.3 And 724 Solutions fails to convince the Court to hear its motion on 

shortened time, especially considering that there is no discovery cutoff yet set in this case. 

Moreover, Openwave represents that it has produced, and will continue to produce, documents 

which it says are likely to resolve some of the issues raised by 724 Solutions. (See Docket No. 206 

at 1.) 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court rules as follows: 

(1) Openwave’s administrative motions for leave to file supplemental briefs (Docket Nos. 198 & 

215) and 724 Solutions’s administrative motion to shorten time (Docket No. 204) are 

DENIED. The Court further VACATES the parties’ noticed hearing dates of August 17 and 

31 for their motions to compel, pursuant to (3) below. (See Docket Nos. 197, 202 & 214). 

(2) The September 7, 2010 noticed hearing date on Openwave’s motion to compel a FRCP 

30(b)(6) deposition is VACATED, pursuant to (3) below (See Docket No. 212.) 

(3) Within the next 14 days, the parties’ attorneys (including their lead attorneys) on these 

matters shall meet and confer in person, face-to-face, about their respective motions. If after 

14 days all of the issues have not been resolved, Openwave and/or 724 Solutions may 

thereafter file new motions to compel complete with new briefing. 

 

2

 Openwave filed a reply to 724 Solutions’s opposition to Openwave’s administrative motion for 

leave to file a supplemental brief regarding one of its re-noticed motions to compel. (Docket No. 

210.) 724 Solutions filed a motion to strike that paper because Civil Local Rule 7-11 does not 

provide for reply briefs in relation to administrative motions. (Docket No. 211.) The Court will 

grant 724 Solutions’s motion. 

3

 Openwave also filed an administrative motion for leave to file under seal Exhibit 4 to its 

“supplemental” brief related to its second re-noticed motion. (Docket No. 217.) As the Court will 

deny Openwave’s motions to file supplemental briefs, it likewise will deny Openwave’s motion to 

file under seal. 

Case 5:09-cv-03511-RS Document 218 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

(4) 724 Solutions’s motion to strike (Docket No. 211) is GRANTED. 

(5) Openwave’s administrative motion for leave to file under seal (Docket No. 217) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 4, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:09-cv-03511-RS Document 218 Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

C09-03511 RS (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Ahren Christian Hoffman ahoffman@morganlewis.com, tmajidian@morganlewis.com 

Brett Michael Schuman bschuman@morganlewis.com, mcwong@morganlewis.com 

Claude M. Stern claudestern@quinnemanuel.com, sandranichols@quinnemanuel.com 

Daniel Johnson, Jr djjohnson@morganlewis.com 

Evette Dionna Pennypacker evettepennypacker@quinnemanuel.com 

Jesse Geraci jessegeraci@quinnemanuel.com, alanarivera@quinnemanuel.com, 

westonreid@quinnemanuel.com 

Michael Henry Page mpage@durietangri.com, records@durietangri.com 

Ray R. Zado ray.zado@ropesgray.com 

Ryan Lindsay Scher rscher@morganlewis.com, ahoffman@morganlewis.com, 

cholsome@morganlewis.com, shaun.sullivan@morganlewis.com, 

tmajidian@morganlewis.com 

Thai Q Le thaile@quinnemanuel.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

 

Case 5:09-cv-03511-RS Document 218 Filed 08/04/10 Page 4 of 4