Opinion
Case No. 4:17-cv-04405-HSG
12-16-2019
PLEXXIKON INC., Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant.
DURIE TANGRI LLP DARALYN J. DURIE (SBN 169825) ddurie@durietangri.com DAVID McGOWAN (SBN 154289) dmcgowan@durietangri.com EUGENE NOVIKOV (SBN 257849) enovikov@durietangri.com LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) lmiller@durietangri.com RAGHAV R. KRISHNAPRIYAN (SBN 273411) rkrishnapriyan@durietangri.com MATTHEW W. SAMUELS (SBN 294668) msamuels@durietangri.com 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-362-6666 Facsimile: 415-236-6300 YOUNG BASILE HANLON & MACFARLANE, P.C. JEFFREY D. WILSON (Pro Hac Vice) wilson@youngbasile.com ANDREW R. BASILE, JR. (SBN 208396) abasile@youngbasile.com EDDIE D. WOODWORTH (Pro Hac Vice) woodworth@youngbasile.com RYAN T. MCCLEARY (Pro Hac Vice) mccleary@youngbasile.com 3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 624 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 649-3333 Facsimile: (248) 649-3338 Attorneys for Plaintiff PLEXXIKON INC.
DURIE TANGRI LLP
DARALYN J. DURIE (SBN 169825)
ddurie@durietangri.com
DAVID McGOWAN (SBN 154289)
dmcgowan@durietangri.com
(SBN 257849)
enovikov@durietangri.com
LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713)
lmiller@durietangri.com
RAGHAV R. KRISHNAPRIYAN (SBN 273411)
rkrishnapriyan@durietangri.com
MATTHEW W. SAMUELS (SBN 294668)
msamuels@durietangri.com
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-362-6666
Facsimile: 415-236-6300 YOUNG BASILE HANLON & MACFARLANE, P.C.
JEFFREY D. WILSON (Pro Hac Vice)
wilson@youngbasile.com
ANDREW R. BASILE, JR. (SBN 208396)
abasile@youngbasile.com
EDDIE D. WOODWORTH (Pro Hac Vice)
woodworth@youngbasile.com
RYAN T. MCCLEARY (Pro Hac Vice)
mccleary@youngbasile.com
3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 624
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 649-3333
Facsimile: (248) 649-3338 Attorneys for Plaintiff
PLEXXIKON INC.
PLAINTIFF PLEXXIKON INC.'S MOTION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
Ctrm: 2 - 4th Floor
Judge: Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 2 III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................................ 2, 3 Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................................. 2 Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) .................................................................................................. 3
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 ........................................................................................................................................ 1, 2 Local Rule
6-3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
7-2(a) ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
7-3(a) ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 6-3, Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc. ("Plexxikon") respectfully requests that the Court enter an order extending the time for Plexxikon to oppose Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Second Summary Judgment Motion ("Motion for Leave") from December 9, 2019 to December 10, 2019 and allowing Plexxikon's filing made on that date. Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation ("Novartis") has indicated that it does not consent to Plexxikon's motion, but does not intend to file an opposition. See Decl. Eugene Novikov in Supp. Mot. ("Novikov Decl.") ¶ 8, Ex. B.
I. BACKGROUND
Novartis filed its Motion for Leave on November 26, 2019. ECF No. 345. Under Local Rule 7-3(a), Plexxikon's opposition to Novartis's Motion for Leave was due on Monday, December 9, 2019. See L.R. 7-3(a). Plexxikon filed the opposition one day late due to a calendaring error occasioned by an unfortunate and unlikely series of events.
On the evening of the December 3, 2019 Case Management Conference, counsel for Plexxikon prepared an internal summary of upcoming deadlines incorporating the changed and additional deadlines announced at the Case Management Conference. See Novikov Decl. ¶ 3. In that summary, counsel inadvertently misstated the deadline for Plexxikon's opposition to Novartis's Motion for Leave, writing that it was due one week from the date of the email's transmission—i.e., December 10, 2019. Id.
After the summary was circulated, calendaring staff for Plexxikon's counsel used the summary to adjust the case calendar in the firm's CompuLaw software. Id. ¶ 4. Because certain other deadlines and events were added and changed at the Case Management Conference, as set forth in the summary, counsel's calendaring staff interpreted the inadvertent misstatement of the deadline for the opposition to the Motion for Leave as likewise changing the previously-calendared deadline from December 9 to December 10, and made the adjustment in the CompuLaw software. Id. These changes are reflected in an Event Audit Report of counsel's CompuLaw software. Id. ¶ 5, Ex. A at 9.
Counsel thereafter relied on the incorrectly calendared date to file Plexxikon's opposition to Novartis's Motion for Leave one day late, on December 10, 2019. Id. ¶ 6; see ECF No. 351. Counsel discovered the fact of the belated filing after reviewing Novartis's reply in support of its Motion for Leave, filed on December 13, 2019. Id.; see ECF No. 353.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) provides that for any act that must be done by a party within a specified time frame, the court may "for good cause, extend the time . . . after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Courts in the Ninth Circuit examine factors such as the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith. Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997). "[T]he determination of whether a party's neglect is excusable 'is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission.'" Id. at 382 (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). "This rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, '[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.'" Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).
Counsel's failure to timely file Plexxikon's opposition to Novartis's Motion for Leave is the result of excusable neglect. As to the first Briones factor, prejudice, Novartis does not contend in its reply brief that it would be prejudiced should the Court accept Plexxikon's opposition. See ECF No. 353 at 1. As to the second, the length of the delay and its impact, Plexxikon's one-day delay will not impact the proceedings in this case, as Novartis's motion remains scheduled to be heard on January 19, 2019, and the motion is now completely briefed with a longer lead time to the hearing than the Local Rules specify. See L.R. 7-2(a). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has found longer delays sufficiently de minimis to warrant permitting the late filing. See, e.g., Ahanchian, 624 F.3d at 1262 (concluding plaintiff's counsel sufficiently established that his three-day-late filing of an opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion was the result of excusable neglect); Briones, 116 F.3d at 380 (remanding for district court to consider whether to entertain opposition filed three and one-half months after the filing deadline).
The third and fourth factors, the reason for the delay and the movant's good faith, also weigh in favor of granting Plexxikon's motion here. As explained above and in the accompanying declaration, the delay was due to an unlikely confluence of events that caused counsel's calendared deadline to incorrectly shift by a day. The Ninth Circuit has found excusable neglect on a less clear record. See Ahanchain, 624 F.3d at 1262 (concluding that the plaintiff should have been allowed to file an opposition three days after the deadline where the belated filing was "due to a calendaring mistake and computer problems"); Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (affirming a finding of excusable neglect where the defendants asserted that their twenty-four day late filing resulted from a calendaring mistake caused by attorneys and paralegals misapplying a clear legal rule).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plexxikon respectfully requests that the Court issue an order extending the time for Plexxikon to file its Opposition to Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Second Summary Judgment Motion from December 9, 2019 to December 10, 2019 and allowing Plexxikon's filing made on that date. Dated: December 16, 2019
DURIE TANGRI LLP
By: /s/ Eugene Novikov
EUGENE NOVIKOV
Attorney for Plaintiff
PLEXXIKON INC.
ORDER
Having considered Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc.'s Motion to Extend Time to Oppose Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Second Summary Judgment Motion and the materials submitted in connection therewith, the Court hereby GRANTS Plexxikon's motion. The Court finds the December 10, 2019 filing of Plexxikon's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Second Summary Judgment Motion, ECF No. 351, to be the result of excusable neglect, and allows this filing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 6-3.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 12/17/2019
/s/_________
Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
United States District Judge