Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03973/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03973-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dolby Laboratories International Services, Inc.
Defendant
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation
Defendant
Dolby Laboratories Licensing International Services, Inc.
Defendant
Dolby Laboratories, Inc.
Defendant
Hui See Tan
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

HUI SEE TAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOLBY LABORATORIES, INC., a corporation

incorporated in the State of California, DOLBY

LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL

SERVICES, INC., a California corporation

incorporated in the State of California, DOLBY

LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION,

INC., a corporation incorporated in the State of

New York doing business in the State of California,

DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING

INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC., a

corporation incorporated in the State of California,

and DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03973 WHA

ORDER DENYING

CONTINUANCE

(EXCEPT IN

LIMITED PART)

The case management order dated January 12, 2006, stated at paragraph 12: 

While the Court encourages the parties to engage in settlement

discussions, please do not ask for any extensions on the ground of

settlement discussions or on the ground that the parties

experienced delays in scheduling settlement conferences,

mediation or ENE. The parties should proceed to prepare their

cases for trial. No continuance (even if stipulated) shall be

granted on the ground of incomplete preparation without

competent and detailed declarations setting forth good cause.

Case 3:05-cv-03973-WHA Document 32 Filed 07/06/06 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

Good cause has not been shown to postpone the milestones in the scheduling order. All

that has been shown is that plaintiff’s counsel has not done his homework. Diligence from the

date of the case management order has not been shown at all, much less in detail. 

It may be that plaintiff learned in the mediation of new issues but there is no showing

that these issues were previously concealed from plaintiff despite diligent discovery efforts. 

The deadline for all opening expert reports, however, will be moved to AUGUST 4 for

both sides. The last date to move for summary judgment will now be SEPTEMBER 6, 2006. All

other deadlines remain unchanged, including the fact discovery cutoff of JULY 14, 2006. 

Except to the limited extent in the prior paragraph, the motion by plaintiff to extend the

discovery cutoff date is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2006. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03973-WHA Document 32 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 2