Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03717/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03717-51/pdf.json

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

---

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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES

AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTERNATIONAL GAME

TECHNOLOGY, et al., 

Defendants.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-3717 RMW (PVT)

INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’

EXPEDITED MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENT

REQUEST NOS. 3, 18, 22, 27-29 AND 32-35

(Re: Docket No. 711)

On April 28, 2010, the parties submitted a joint letter brief regarding the Plaintiffs’ pending

Expedited Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Document Request Responses Nos. 3, 18, 22,

27-29 and 32-35, which was filed before the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Trumbull for

discovery matters. Based on the joint letter brief and the file herein, 1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than May 5, 2010, the parties shall submit to Judge

Trumbull’s chambers (via the clerk’s office) additional chambers copies of all briefs and declarations

they previously submitted in connection with this motion.

Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 782 Filed 04/29/10 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

Unless the requested period of discoverywould actually interfere with matters unrelated 2

to discovery on Judge Whyte’s calendar, any such motion should be noticed on the calendar of the

assigned Magistrate Judge. Judge Trumbull hears law and motion on Tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. Briefs

filed in connection with motions on Judge Trumbull’s calendar shall be in proper format, not letter

briefs.

ORDER, page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for a telephone status conference to

discuss the status of discovery is DENIED. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, discovery was not open

when Judge Whyte stayed the case. While the parties requested the stay on November 19, 2009,

Judge Whyte did not order the stay until December 23, 2009, after the December 11, 2009 discovery

cut-off. Nothing in the order staying the case made the stay retroactive. On the contrary, the order

states that the matter “shall be, and hereby is stayed,” indicating that the stay began the day Judge

Whyte issued the order. This order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs moving to reopen discovery. 

Plaintiffs may make their motion on two weeks notice. Any opposition shall be filed at least one

week before the noticed hearing date.2

Dated: April 29, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03717-RMW Document 782 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 2