Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. VMware, Inc.

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01414

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying {{102}} Discovery Letter Brief. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 7 Case No. 15-cv-01414-HSG (DMR) Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 9 MOTION TO COMPEL VMWARE, INC., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 102 Defendant. 11 12 The fact discovery cut-off in this matter was April 29, 2016. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule Northern District of California United States District Court 13 37-3, "no motions to compel fact discovery may be filed more than 7 days after the fact discovery 14 cut-off." At the parties' joint request, the court extended the motion to compel deadline to May 15 20, 2016. [Docket No. 97.] On June 9, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter in which 16 Defendant VMware, Inc. moves to compel Plaintiff Phoenix Technologies Ltd. ("Phoenix") to 17 supplement four interrogatory responses. [Docket No. 102.] VMWare's motion is thus three 18 weeks late. 19 VMWare asserts that it agreed not to raise Phoenix's allegedly deficient interrogatory 20 responses by the May 20, 2016 extended deadline based on Phoenix's representation that it would 21 supplement its responses. Phoenix did supplement its responses, but VMWare believes they are 22 still deficient. By deciding to postpone taking action, especially after receiving a two-week 23 extension, VMWare assumed the risk that the court would deny any late-filed motion as untimely. 24 VMWare's motion is denied as untimely. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: June 16, 2016 ______________________________________ 27 Donna M. Ryu 28 United States Magistrate Judge