Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07336/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07336-34/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SPEEDTRACK INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

WAL-MART.COM USA,LLC, et

al.,

Defendant(s). 

ENDECA TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Intervenor,

v.

SPEEDTRACK INC., et al.

Defendant in 

 Intervention.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-7336 PJH (BZ)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL INTERROGATORY ANSWERS

On July 11, 2008, Endeca Technologies, Inc. served four

contention interrogatories on SpeedTrack, Inc. asking for the

factual bases of certain of SpeedTrack’s affirmative defenses. 

On August 11, 2008, SpeedTrack filed objections to the four

interrogatories, on the principal grounds that they were

untimely under the Local Rules and Judge Hamilton’s scheduling

Case 4:06-cv-07336-PJH Document 199 Filed 10/15/08 Page 1 of 3
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 See Schwarzer, et al. California Practice Guide,

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶¶ 11:578.5, 579,

explaining the alternatives a party has for obtaining relief

from a discovery cut off. 

2

order. SpeedTrack argued that fact discovery was cut off 

August 8, 2008, and since Endeca had served its

interrogatories so that the responses were not due until

August 11, 2008, the interrogatories were untimely.

Endeca has now moved to compel SpeedTrack to answer these

interrogatories. Endeca does not dispute that they were filed

at least one day late. Endeca offers no adequate explanation

for why it waited so long to file these contention

interrogatories. The only explanation proffered is that the

parties agreed that other discovery would be provided by

August 11, 2008. Endeca never explains why it did not reach a

similar agreement as to this discovery or why it waited to

file what appear to be routine contention interrogatories

until after it reached that agreement. Is Endeca suggesting

that if the other agreement had not been reached, these

interrogatories would not have been filed? 

Nor does Endeca offer any explanation for why it did not

move for an order shortening time to require SpeedTrack to

answer the interrogatories before the discovery cut off or why

it did not move to extend the discovery cutoff by at least one

day.1

 Instead, Endeca argues that SpeedTrack has not shown

any prejudice if it answers the late discovery. However,

since Endeca has not shown good cause for getting late

discovery, the absence of prejudice to SpeedTrack does not

help Endeca. Lory v. General Elec. Co., 179 F.R.D. 86, 89

Case 4:06-cv-07336-PJH Document 199 Filed 10/15/08 Page 2 of 3
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 Nor is this a case in which a party failed to

participate in a Rule 16 conference in good faith, as in the

other case on which Endeca relies, Kingsley Group, Inc. v.

Kellogg USA, Inc., 2002 WL 32100264 (N.Dist. Ill.)

3 In its reply, Endeca argues that because Judge

Hamilton has continued the trial and certain discovery

deadlines, this deadline should be overlooked. Unfortunately

for Endeca, it appears that Judge Hamilton has bifurcated

issues of liability from damages and has only extended

discovery on the damages phase of the case. Nothing in Judge

Hamilton’s order or the stipulation the parties reached

following her order suggests that liability discovery has been

reopened. Obviously Endeca had an opportunity to extend

liability discovery and did not.

3

(N.D.N.Y. 1998). Endeca also argues that the court should use

its discretion to bail it out, relying on mostly bankruptcy

cases that recognize the discretion of a bankruptcy court to

excuse a party’s failure to comply with Local Rules or

scheduling requirements.2 See nVidia Corp. V. U.S. Bankruptcy

Court for Northern District of California, 2006 WL 3734297

(N.D. Cal.) and cases cited at *5. 

SpeedTrack’s opposition highlights the fact that Endeca

took none of the available routes to get relief from its late

filing and has provided no good cause for its conduct. I

agree. The issue is not whether the court has the discretion

to alter the scheduling requirements but rather whether

Endeca has followed the proper procedures in asking the court

to exercise its discretion and has shown good cause for doing 

so. Because it has done neither, Endeca’s motion to compel

is DENIED.3 

Dated: October 15, 2008 Bernard Zimmerman

 United States Magistrate Judge

bzall\-Refs\Speedtrack v. Wal-Mart\Order Denying Motion To Compel Interrogatory

Answers.Tentative.Rule.Final.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-07336-PJH Document 199 Filed 10/15/08 Page 3 of 3