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

FITBIT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAGUNA 2, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00079-EMC 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; AND 

RESCHEDULING HEARINGS ON 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Docket No. 139

In February 2017, the Court granted Fitbit’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to the 

L2 Defendants. See Docket No. 52 (order). At the time of the order, the Fitbit had added the Cali 

Defendants as named defendants, see Docket No. 36 (first amended complaint), but the Cali 

Defendants had not yet made an appearance, and Fitbit had not yet moved for temporary or 

preliminary injunctive relief with respect to the Cali Defendants. The Court thus ordered Fitbit to 

file a motion with respect to the Cali Defendants to the extent Fitbit sought similar temporary or 

preliminary injunctive relief. See Docket No. 52 (Order at 5).

Shortly after the Court’s order, Fitbit and the Cali Defendants reached a stipulation under 

which the preliminary injunction entered as to the L2 Defendants would likewise apply to the Cali 

Defendants. The Court signed the parties’ stipulation on March 1, 2017. See Docket No. 56 

(stipulation and order).

Now, almost nine months later, the Cali Defendants – along with Great Value – have 

moved for a modification of the preliminary injunction. See Docket No. 137 (motion). The Cali 

Defendants and Great Value ask for the modification motion to be heard on shortened time – more 

specifically, to be heard on December 14, 2017, the same date on which the Court will hear
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Fitbit’s motion to strike or dismiss the L2 Defendants and the Cali Defendants’ counterclaims and 

certain affirmative defenses. The Cali Defendants and Great Value argue that it would be 

convenient to have the modification motion heard on December 14 given that the parties will 

already be appearing before the Court on Fitbit’s motion to dismiss or strike. Implicitly 

recognizing that convenience is hardly dispositive, the Cali Defendants and Great Value also argue 

that the modification motion should be heard on December 14 so that they can sell some of the 

Fitbit products in their possession “prior to the end of the Christmas season.” Mot. at 1.

The motion to shorten time is DENIED. As noted above, convenience may be a 

consideration for the Court in evaluating a motion to shorten time, but it is hardly dispositive. To 

the extent the Cali Defendants and Great Value request shortened time because of the Christmas 

season, the Court still is not persuaded. If the Cali Defendants and Great Value were truly 

concerned about the Christmas season, then they would have moved to modify the preliminary 

injunction well in advance of Christmas – e.g., in October. The preliminary injunction has been in 

place since March 1, 2017. The Cali Defendants and Great Value fail to explain why they waited 

until the eleventh hour, so to speak, to seek relief.

Accordingly, the motion to shorten time is denied.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Cali Defendants and Great Value have now filed a 

motion for summary judgment, the Court now consolidates the hearings on the modification 

motion and the summary judgment motion. Both motions shall be heard on January 10, 2018, 

at 9:30 a.m. The briefing schedules for the motions shall remain the same.

This order disposes of Docket No. 139.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge