A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Delaware regulars will know that a stipulation to extend a deadline will—with certain limited exceptions—usually be granted as a matter of course. Moreover, the common wisdom is that one ought to agree to a short extension of a discovery or briefing deadline, absent some strong reason not to. Such is the DELAWARE WAY (TM).

Sometimes, though, a request for an extension just rubs you the wrong way. Maybe they ask late, maybe they jerked you around when you asked for an extension last time, maybe you saw them double-dip a chip at the last bar mixer and you just can't get over it. In those times, it's nice to be able to point to case where the court denied a request for a brief discovery extension request.

For those days (I find I have them more frequently as I age out of the "Young Lawyers" section and into the "steadily decaying lawyers" section) I present PerDiemCo LLC v. CalAmp Corp., C.A. No. 20-1397-GBW-SRF (D. Del. Feb. 17, 2023) (oral order).

DALL·E 2023-02-23 21.24.02 - CYBERPUNK ART OF GRINNING ZOMBIE WEARING SUIT RUBBING HIS HANDS TOGETHER
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

The plaintiff there filed a one-page motion requesting a modest 1-week extension of its contention deadline "due to scheduling conflicts with other matters" and to "work[] the information learned from the new materials into its Final Infringement Contentions." Later that same day, the defendant filed a similarly brief opposition noting that it had agreed to the extension, on the condition that it receive a similar extension to its invalidity contention deadline, but plaintiff had refused. Later—still on that same day(!)—Judge Fallon denied the request in an oral order stating:

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for extension of time is DENIED. Plaintiff lacks a reasonable basis for requesting the extension. The limited explanation for the requested extension is not persuasive as it was filed on the very date the contentions are due

Id.

I wish pacer came with timestamps, because I'd really like to know how long this all took. Looking on the docket, it appears that Plaintiff did manage to serve those infringement contentions that same day as well (at least according to the NOS they filed on Tuesday), but it can't have been a pleasant evening.

So there you go, a spite cite. Use it wisely lest it be turned upon you in due course.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.

All

Similar Posts