Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-308/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03561 WHA

ORDER EXTENDING

DEADLINE FOR LG

TO FILE MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Fact discovery in this matter closed on December 16. Due to numerous discovery

disputes and issues involving third-party notice, defendant Google Inc. could not timely

complete its production and has been producing documents that required third-party notice on a

rolling basis. Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc., has acquiesced in Google’s late production by

declining to seek any discovery relief regarding those documents.

Google informed third party LG Electronics, Inc., that it intended to produce certain

documents that may have contained confidential information on January 7, 2016. Google

provided the specific documents it intended to produce to LG on January 26. Pursuant to the

protective order in this action, LG had fourteen days from the date Google identified the

specific documents at issue to object to their production, resulting in a deadline of February 9. 

On February 8, LG moved to extend that deadline by two weeks to February 23, stating that it

had not retained outside counsel until February 5 and that its counsel needs extra time to

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1499 Filed 02/10/16 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

become familiar with this matter. Oracle opposes LG’s request for an extension, inasmuch as

Oracle believes the documents at issue may be relevant to its rebuttal expert report due on

February 22. 

LG had more than a month to request this extension and to retain outside counsel, but

waited until the last minute to do so. Moreover, LG should already have been familiar with this

matter inasmuch as it previously approved Google’s production of twelve documents in

December 2015. Google’s delay in identifying the specific documents it intended to produce

ultimately gave LG more time to retain counsel for this purpose or seek this extension. LG’s

objections pertain to Google’s production of four documents, so the magnitude of its motion

does not warrant a two-week extension. Accordingly, LG shall have until 4:00 P.M. ON

FEBRUARY 12, 2016 to file its motion. LG should comply with Judge Ryu’s procedure for

discovery disputes, including meeting and conferring with Google and Oracle and presenting its

motion in a joint letter with the parties (Dkt. No. 1459). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1499 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 2