Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01604/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-01604-6/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 03-1604 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION AND MOTION TO SEAL;

 RHS INC. et al., CONTINUING DATES SUA SPONTE

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s administrative motion, filed three weeks before the

discovery cutoff date, a date requested by the parties, to extend discovery and other

pretrial dates by 30 days. At this juncture in the proceedings, the court is uninterested in

trying to unravel all the allegations of wrongdoing asserted by both sides as to how

discovery has been conducted. The proper procedure for plaintiff to have followed would

have been to bring defendant’s misfeasance to the court’s attention via a duly noticed

motion to compel, when it occurred; not to wait until the end of discovery, add up every

arguable wrong committed by defendant and its counsel and lay them before the court as

justification for giving it more time. The court finds that plaintiff has not established good

cause for the extension of pretrial dates. The motion is DENIED.

However, in view of the court’s unavailability on June 13, 2007, the date on which

the hearing on dispositive motions is scheduled, the hearing date is continued to June 27,

2006, at 9:00 a.m. The parties are further advised that this date is the only date in June or

July, except July 25, 2007, that is available for hearing of any dispositive motions that may

be filed. In view of this schedule change, the discovery and disclosure dates are also

continued two weeks from the dates noted in the September 21, 2006 scheduling order. 

Case 4:03-cv-01604-PJH Document 153 Filed 03/12/07 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

Additionally, plaintiff’s reply brief is STRICKEN as filed in violation of Civ. L.R. 7-

11(c). Plaintiff is further admonished that the court insists that parties comply with Civ. L.R.

3-4(c)(2), which requires that the text of footnotes conform to the font size requirements of

the body of the brief. Any non-conforming footnotes appearing in future filings will be

stricken.

Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal Kirsch Declaration Exhibit D is DENIED, for failure

to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-01604-PJH Document 153 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2