Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03395/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03395-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re MERCURY INTERACTIVE CORP.

SECURITIES LITIGATION,

___________________________________ 

This Document Relates To: 

ALL ACTIONS

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-3395 JF (PVT)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

DEFENDANT MERCURY

INTERACTIVE CORP. SHOULD NOT

BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR 

WILLFULLY VIOLATING COURT

ORDER WITHOUT OBTAINING

STAY OF ORDER

On December 11, 2006, this court issued an order requiring Defendant Mercury Interactive

Corp. (“Mercury”) to produce certain documents to Lead Plaintiff.1 On December 13, 2006,

Mercury filed a document entitled “Mercury’s Notice of its Intent to Object to Magistrate Judge’s

December 11, 2006 Order” in which it stated its unilateral decision not to comply with this court’s

December 11, 2006 order at this time. Based on the notice filed by Mercury and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than noon on December 15, 2006 Mercury shall file

a declaration showing cause why it should not be held in contempt of court for willfully violating

this court’s December 11, 2006 order without obtaining stay of that order. 

Absent a stay, a party must promptly comply with a court order and failure to do so warrants

Case 5:05-cv-03395-JF Document 175 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

ORDER, page 2

a finding of contempt, even if the original order is later ruled incorrect. See Maness v. Meyers, 419

U.S. 449, 458-59 (1975); see also, In re Crystal Palace Gambling Hall, Inc., 817 F.2d 1361, 1365

(9th Cir. 1987). The filing of an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s order does not automatically stay

that order. See White v. Burt Enterprises, 200 F.R.D. 641, 642-43 (D.Col. 2000); see also Wright,

Miller & Marcus, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL 2d § 3069. As another court has

explained, “allowing the automatic stay of [a] magistrate [judge]’s orders would not only encourage

the filing of frivolous appeals, but would grind the magistrate [judge] system to [a] halt.” Litton

Industries, Inc. v. Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb Inc., 124 F.R.D. 75, 79 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order to show cause re contempt will be dissolved if,

no later than noon on December 15, 2006, Mercury files with this court a request for stay of the

court’s December 11, 2006 order which: 1) sets forth the grounds for the stay; and 2) is supported by

a declaration by an authorized representative of Mercury confirming that Mercury is not now

engaged in, and will not engage in pending resolution of the objection to the December 11, 2006

order, any settlement negotiations with any of the individual Defendants in either this action or any

of the related state court actions. 

Dated: 12/14/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03395-JF Document 175 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 2