Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00651/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00651-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sproqit Technologies, Inc.
Counter-claimant
Visto Corporation
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

State

s

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISTO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPROQIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0651 EMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO CONTINUE

(Docket No. 175)

Visto has filed a motion to continue the claim construction hearing, currently set for July 5,

2006. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby

DENIES the motion.

Visto asserts that the claim construction hearing should be continued – more specifically,

until after a decision is rendered on a recently filed motion for dismissal sanctions – because (1)

Sproqit has not complied with its discovery obligations and (2) by its own admission, Sproqit cannot

comply now or in the future with its discovery obligations. Neither argument is persuasive.

First, it is not clear that Sproqit has not complied with its discovery obligations. According

to Visto, Sproqit has not complied with its discovery obligations because it refused to produce at

30(b)(6) witness who can testify about, inter alia, technological matters. However, based on the

evidence submitted, Sproqit never said that it would not produce a witness. Rather, counsel for

Sproqit informed counsel for Visto that Sproqit was not in a position to produce a witness on the

date desired by Visto. Admittedly, counsel for Sproqit did say that Sproqit would produce a witness

Case 3:04-cv-00651-EMC Document 181 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

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

 According to Sproqit, it has hired an expert to study its source code and software, and this

expert will be its 30(b)(6) designee on technical matters. See Opp’n at 7.

2

“to the extent that [it] is even possible” but this is not yet an outright refusal to comply with

discovery.1 There is no evidence that Visto needs the 30(b)(6) deposition for the claim construction

hearing.

Second, to the extent Visto argues that the claim construction hearing should be continued

because Sproqit cannot comply with discovery in the future, this argument rests on the premise that

Sproqit is no longer a functioning business. However, it is not clear at this juncture that Sproqit is

out of business and cannot comply with its litigation obligations. A 30(b)(6) witness who testified

on behalf of Sproqit did say that Sproqit had no employees but that was in terms of being paid a

salary or wage. Moreover, the witness testified that Sproqit still has a president and the president is

restructuring the company. Counsel for Sproqit also informed Visto that Sproqit’s president is

restructuring the company. Visto’s contention that it is impossible for Sproqit to comply with

discovery is premature. Even if Sproqit is no longer a functioning business, that does not mean that

it cannot pursue this litigation. In fact, the opposite seems to be true as Sproqit has, for example,

provided an extensive opposition to this motion to continue as well as a full brief for the claim

construction hearing. 

The Court acknowledges Visto’s statements in its motion that it will file (and now has in fact

filed) a motion for dismissal sanctions, which if granted would make the claim construction hearing

moot. However, at this point, although Visto has filed a dismissal motion, it has not requested that

that motion be heard on shortened time (i.e., prior to the claim construction hearing). The Court

cannot prejudge the likelihood such a motion will be successful.

Accordingly, Visto’s motion to continue the claim construction hearing is DENIED. The

parties are advised to meet and confer regarding a tutorial, as previously instructed by the Court. 

The parties are reminded that the meet and confer should address, inter alia, the length each side will

be permitted to have and the exchange of any demonstratives prior to the tutorial (so that there will

no objections during the tutorial). The parties are also reminded that no argument should be

presented during the tutorial. The parties should provide a joint letter to the Court by June 29, 2006,

Case 3:04-cv-00651-EMC Document 181 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

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

3

stating the proposed length of the tutorial and certifying that all demonstratives have been exchanged

and agreed upon. The tutorial shall be held on July 5, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. The claim construction

hearing shall be held on July 6, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 175.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2006

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00651-EMC Document 181 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 3