Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NSIGHT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLESOFT, INC,

Defendant /

No. C-04-3836 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, FOR

REVISED CASE MANAGEMENT

ORDER, FOR CANCELLATION OF

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, AND FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff nSight, Inc.’s motion, filed November 18, 2005,

titled “Motion for a Protective Order, for Revised Case Management Order, for Cancellation

of the Settlement Conference with the Magistrate Judge, and for Leave to Amend the

Complaint to Add Defendants.” Having reviewed the motion, the Court hereby rules as

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, with respect to a deposition defendant

has noticed as to a third party, is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to

support the motion with “a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or

attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without

court action.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Further, plaintiff has failed to identify the particular

protective order it seeks.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the case management order is hereby DENIED

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 70 Filed 11/18/05 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

2

without prejudice. Although plaintiff’s motion asserts, generally, that plaintiff needs more

time to take discovery, plaintiff fails to offer a declaration to establish the requisite “good

cause.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

3. Plaintiff’s motion to cancel the settlement conference is hereby DENIED. To the

extent plaintiff may be seeking to continue the date on which the settlement conference will

occur, plaintiff may seek such relief from Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen.

4. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add two new defendants is hereby

DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff’s filing a noticed motion seeking such relief, showing

therein plaintiff’s entitlement to so amend, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), 15(c), and attaching

thereto the proposed amended complaint, see Civil L.R. 10-1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 70 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2