Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03511/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03511-5/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 February 10, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

724 SOLUTIONS (US) INC. and 724 

SOLUTIONS SOFTWARE INC., 

 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________ 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

____________________________________/

No. C09-03511 RS (HRL) 

INTERIM ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

[Re: Docket No. 74] 

On February 3, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to provide supplemental 

production concerning numerous interrogatories and requests for production. Allegedly, plaintiff’s 

counsel and defendants’ former counsel had come to an agreement on these discovery issues 

following a meet-and-confer effort. However, defendants’ counsel withdrew on January 25, 2010. 

The very next day, plaintiff’s counsel held a meet-and-confer call with defendants’ new counsel, 

who at that time allegedly would not commit to honoring the former counsel’s agreements. 

Based on the court’s review of plaintiff’s motion, it does not appear that there have been 

sufficient meet-and-confer efforts with defendants’ new counsel to satisfy the requirements of Local 

Rule 37-1. Accordingly, the court ORDERS the parties to meet-and-confer concerning the issues 

plaintiff has raised in its motion to compel. To allow the parties sufficient time to do so, the hearing 

on plaintiff’s motion is CONTINUED to April 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall file a 

Case 5:09-cv-03511-RS Document 87 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 3
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 

supplemental brief advising the court of the parties’ efforts and whether any of the issues in its 

current motion are resolved on March 9, 2010. The defendants’ opposition or statement of nonopposition is due March 16, 2010. Plaintiff’s reply, if any, is due March 23, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 10, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:09-cv-03511-RS Document 87 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 3
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 

C 09-03511 RS (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

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

Christopher Owen Green cgreen@fr.com, kanabe@fr.com, ricardo@fr.com 

Daniel Johnson, Jr djjohnson@morganlewis.com 

David M. Barkan barkan@fr.com, horsley@fr.com 

Nagendra Setty nsetty@fr.com, bthompson@fr.com, dang@fr.com, jsantos@fr.com, 

 lane@fr.com, rmorgan@fr.com, wtb@fr.com 

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

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

 tmajidian@morganlewis.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 87 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 3