Free Order on Motion to Shorten Time - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-mc-80226-JF

Document 9

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NEW MEDIUM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et al., Plaintiff, v. BARCO, N.V., Defendant. / NO. C 07-80226 MISC JF (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME *E-FILED 9/27/07*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This is a miscellaneous action brought to enforce a third-party deposition subpoena issued under the authority of this district in connection with an underlying patent infringement action pending in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Consumer Products LLC (collectively "Toshiba") move under Civil Local 6-3 for an order shortening time in which to brief and hear Toshiba's motion to compel the deposition of Jerry B. Torrance, Jr. Toshiba asserts the motion to compel must be heard and decided in sufficient time to permit the Torrance deposition to be complete prior to the October 19, 2007 discovery cut off in the underlying action. Once a party has filed a timely motion to compel, the fact that the discovery cut off may pass before the motion is heard and decided in no way precludes the court from ordering the discovery to go forward, assuming the court concludes the motion to compel should be granted. Indeed, under the Civil Local Rules in this District, motions to compel may be filed up to seven court days after 1

Case 5:07-mc-80226-JF

Document 9

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

the discovery cut off. That rule would be meaningless if the passing of the discovery cut off somehow precluded the court from granting a motion to compel. See Civil Local Rule 26-2.1 Toshiba has not identified any other exigent circumstances that would warrant hearing its motion on shortened time. Accordingly, the motion to shorten time is DENIED. Toshiba's motion to compel, filed on September 24, 2007, shall be heard on October 31, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4. Toshiba shall give notice of this order to all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 9/27/07 RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court need not decide how Rule 26-2 would apply where the local rules of another district in an underlying action provided a different deadline for bringing motions to compel. There is no dispute that the discovery cut off in the underlying case has not expired and that the motion to compel is therefore timely.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME C 07-80226 MISC JF (RS)
1

2

Case 5:07-mc-80226-JF

Document 9

Filed 09/27/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO: Martha Corcoran Luemers [email protected], [email protected]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 9/27/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg By: /s/ BAK

8 9 10

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME C 07-80226 MISC JF (RS)

3