Pacer - Postponing discovery deadline till judge rule for Motion to stay Feb/8/
in response to
by
Message: NUNCHI by e.Digital
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ArcSoft, Inc., dba as Closeli and as simplicam, Defendant. Case No. 3:15-cv-00056-BEN-DHB JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE DISCOVERY MOTIONS [Civil Chambers Rule IV.C.] No hearing requested Ctrm: 10th Floor – Carter/Keep Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick
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.
8 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply