Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”) and Defendant ArcSoft, Inc.
(“ArcSoft”) (collectively, “the Parties”) hereby submit this joint motion to extend
the 45-day deadline for the parties to file any Joint Motion for Determination of
Discovery Dispute under Civil Chambers Rule IV.C. Good cause exists for
continuing the deadline as set forth below.
On November 4, 2015, e.Digital served a first set of interrogatories and, on
November 5, 2015, e.Digital served a first set of requests for production. ArcSoft,
pursuant to an extension granted by e.Digital, served its objections and responses
to said requests on December 14, 2015.
On November 6, 2015, ArcSoft served a first set of interrogatories and
requests for production on e.Digital. Pursuant to an extension granted by ArcSoft,
e.Digital served its objections and responses to the requests on December 15, 2016.
Magistrate Judge Bartick’s Civil Chambers Rule IV provides in pertinent
part:
A. Counsel are to promptly meet and confer regarding all disputed
issues, pursuant to the requirements of Civil Local rule 26.1.a. …
***
C. If the parties have not resolved their dispute through the meet
and confer process, counsel shall, within forty-five (45) days of the
date upon which the event giving rise to the dispute occurred, file a
joint statement entitled “Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery
Dispute” with the Court.
Pursuant to this rule, the Parties are required to file a Joint Motion with
respect to ArcSoft’s discovery responses by Thursday, January 28, 2016. The
Parties would be required to file a Joint Motion with respect to e.Digital’s
discovery responses would be Friday, January 29, 2016.
The Parties believe entry of a protective order may alleviate some
outstanding discovery concerns. However, as of the date of this joint motion, no
protective order has been entered by the Court. On January 6, 2016, e.Digital
provided ArcSoft with a draft protective order. However, as of the date of this
Joint Motion, the Parties have not reached agreement on a protective order to
submit to the Court.
On January 8, 2016, ArcSoft filed a motion to stay this litigation pending
resolution of six inter partes review petitions filed by non-parties Google, Inc.,
Nest, Inc. and Dropcam, Inc., which petitions address the five patents at issue in
the present case. (Doc. No. 50.) e.Digital has opposed the motion (Doc. No. 56)
and the matter is scheduled to be heard by Judge Benitez on February 8, 2016.
Because ArcSoft’s Motion to Stay, if granted, would obviate the need for the
Court to consider any discovery motions or stipulated protective order, the Parties
hereby stipulate to postpone further discussion of a protective order until after the
Court decides the pending motion to stay. The Parties further stipulate to extend
the 45-day deadline to resolve any outstanding discovery disputes until at least two
weeks after entry of Judge Benitez’s decision on the subject motion to stay and ask
the Court to enter an order approving same.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
Dated: January 27, 2016 By: /s/ Gabriel G. Hedrick
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION
Dated: January 27, 2016 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
By: /s/ Olga May
Olga May
Attorneys for Defendant
ARCSOFT, INC.
