Free
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.

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply