Sectra Communications AB v. Absolute Software Inc

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8

9 SECTRA COMMUNICATIONS AB et al., Case No. C22-353RSM

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 11 MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND v. REMAINING DEADLINES 12 13 ABSOLUTE SOFTWARE, INC., et al.,

14 Defendants.

16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion seeking to continue trial and 17 all remaining deadlines in this case. Dkt. #326. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition brief. Dkt. 18 #333. No party has requested oral argument. 19 Under the current case schedule, the deadline to exchange rebuttal expert reports is 20 January 30, 2024, with completion of expert discovery on February 9 and dispositive motions 21 22 due February 23, 2024. Dkt. #279. The current trial date is July 15, 2024. Id. 23 A cursory glance at the docket makes clear that this case is not ready for final expert 24 reports now or dispositive motions in February. Currently pending are, inter alia: a Motion to 25 Dismiss Mobile Sonic, Inc.’s Third Amended Counterclaim, filed by Plaintiff Sectra 26 Communications AB; a Motion to Compel, filed by Sectra; and a Motion for Leave to Amend 27 28 Counterclaim and Infringement Contentions filed by Defendant Mobile Sonic, Inc. Dkts. #256, #276, and #318. In addition, the Court has recently granted in part Defendants’ Motion to 1 2 Dismiss with leave for Plaintiff to amend within thirty days. Dkt. #325. In sum, the pleadings 3 are in flux and discovery is not yet resolved. 4 A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s 5 consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The decision to modify a scheduling order is within the 6 broad discretion of the district court. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 7 8 607 (9th Cir. 1992). “Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of 9 the party seeking amendment.” Id. at 609. If a party has acted diligently yet still cannot 10 reasonably meet the scheduling deadlines, the court may allow modification of the schedule. 11 Id. However, “if that party was not diligent, the inquiry should end” and the motion to modify 12 13 should not be granted. Id. Local Civil Rule 16(m) states that “this rule will be strictly 14 enforced” in order to “accomplish effective pretrial procedures and avoid wasting the time of 15 the parties, counsel, and the court.” 16 It is not reasonably possible for the parties or the Court to continue on the existing 17 schedule. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate prejudice from Defendants’ proposed extension 18 19 of deadlines. Under the above circumstances, the Court finds good cause to continue all 20 remaining case deadlines in this case. Deadlines that have already passed are not continued. 21 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 22 finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion seeking to continue trial and all remaining 23 deadlines in this case, Dkt. #326, is GRANTED as follows: 24 25 Event Current Dates New Dates 26 Rebuttal expert 1/30/2024 4/12/2024 disclosures/reports 27 Expert discovery completed 2/9/2024 4/26/2024 28 Dispositive and Daubert 2/23/2024 5/10/2024 1 motions Responses to dispositive and 3/12/2024 5/31/2024 2 Daubert motions Replies to dispositive and 3/12/2024 6/14/2024 3 Daubert motions 4 Trial 7/15/2024 10/15/2024 5 6 DATED this 26th day of January, 2024. 7 A 8 9 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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