Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03570/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03570-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITY SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 06-3570 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION

JEFFRY A. KELBER,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is the joint administrative motion of the parties to extend pretrial

dates in this case in order to afford them more time to prepare a protective order before

retaining experts and exchanging confidential information. Preliminarily, the court finds that

the purpose of the request does not justify the extent of the continuance sought. More

significantly, however, in addition to a continuance of the expert discovery deadlines, the

parties request a two month extension of the date to hear dispositive motions, from April 9,

2008 to June 2, 2008. With pretrial and trial dates of July 10 and August 4 respectively, the

pretrial filings are currently due on June 10, 2008. Thus, the parties seek a new dispositive

motions date that is one week prior to the date that all of their pretrial papers must be filed. 

As the parties were advised in the case management and pretrial order, the court hears

dispositive motions 120 days before trial (or 90 days before the pretrial conference) so that

the court has adequate time within which to prepare a ruling on the dispositive motions and

the parties have the ruling in advance of their preparation of pretrial papers. The court

therefore DENIES the administrative motion. The court would be inclined to approve a

Case 4:06-cv-03570-PJH Document 59 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 2
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

more modest request for adjustment of the discovery deadlines, if the parties wish to

submit another stipulated request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03570-PJH Document 59 Filed 01/09/08 Page 2 of 2