Order Denying Further Discovery, Enplas Display Device Corp., et al. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Case No. 13-cv-05038 (U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins)
A recent order by Magistrate Judge Cousins in Enplas v. Seoul, a case which the NorCal IP Blog previously reported on here, illustrates the perils of failing to diligently pursue discovery. Magistrate Judge Cousins previously permitted the parties to meet and confer and request further discovery, but set a deadline of January 6, 2016. Neither party sought further discovery by that date.
According to Enplas, Seoul Semiconductor agreed during a December hearing that certain document and deposition discovery would be provided, but "took no steps toward producing" it. Then, on January 8 – two days after the cutoff to request further discovery – Seoul Semiconductor "indicated it would not provide the data ... or ... deposition" due to alleged waiver.
Enplas requested the desired discovery at the January 13, 2016 telephonic case management conference. However, with a pretrial conference only six weeks away, Magistrate Judge Cousins denied Enplas's request, noting the passage of the January 6 deadline and the fact that Enplas had anticipated this discovery since December.
As this order highlights, parties should be mindful to precisely follow all court orders and bring any outstanding discovery matters to the Court's attention on or before (not after) specified deadlines, notwithstanding any side agreement that may exist between the parties.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
