From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cyntec Co. v. Chilisin Elecs. Corp.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 17, 2021
18-cv-00939-PJH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2021)

Opinion

18-cv-00939-PJH

12-17-2021

CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff, v. CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP., et al., Defendants.


ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF RE: DKT. NO. 303

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge.

Before the court is a discovery letter brief filed by the parties in the above-captioned case. See Dkt. 303. In the letter, Chilisin requests that the court re-open discovery post-trial and order Cyntec to supplement its discovery responses. Chilisin's request is based on an email produced by Cyntec during discovery that references a “Master Development and Supply Agreement” (“MDSA”) with Apple.

Importantly, the email that gives rise to Chilisin's request has been in Chilisin's possession since at least January 10, 2020, the date on which fact discovery closed. Chilisin's request to re-open discovery at this late stage is not only untimely, but also shows a lack of diligence by Chilisin in failing to pursue the discovery before trial. Moreover, it is highly speculative to argue that, if the MDSA were to be produced, it would show that Chilisin's activity was protected under a licensing or similar non-assertion provision. Accordingly, Chilisin's request to re-open discovery is DENIED. The current deadlines for post-trial briefing shall remain in place.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cyntec Co. v. Chilisin Elecs. Corp.

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Dec 17, 2021
18-cv-00939-PJH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2021)
Case details for

Cyntec Co. v. Chilisin Elecs. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff, v. CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP., et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Dec 17, 2021

Citations

18-cv-00939-PJH (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2021)