Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 401 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`PAUL ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`Case No.: 17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO EXTEND
`
`THE DEADLINE FOR FINJAN’S REPLY
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S ADMIN. MOT. TO EXTEND Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`REPLY DEADLINE
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 401 Filed 03/22/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) respectfully requests the Court to extend the deadline for Finjan
`to file its Reply Summary Judgment brief for the ‘154 Patent (“Reply Brief”) by two (2) business days
`such that the Reply Brief would be due on April 8, 2019.
`Currently, the Reply Brief is due on April 4, 2019 and the summary judgment motion hearing is
`set for May 2, 2019. Dkt. 219. Juniper raised several allegations and source code citations for the first
`time in its opposition to Finjan’s summary judgment motion for the ‘154 Patent. Juniper’s opposition
`was supported by three declarations: one by attorney Rebecca Carson, one by Juniper employee Frank
`Jas, and one by their expert, Dr. Rubin. In order to adequately address the allegations in Juniper’s
`opposition, Finjan asked Juniper to provide dates where either Mr. Jas or Dr. Rubin would be available
`for a deposition. Declaration of Kristopher Kastens filed herewith (“Kastens Decl.”), Ex. A. Juniper
`offered Dr. Rubin for deposition on either Saturday, March 30, or else at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, April 2.
`Id., at 3. Unable to accept the Saturday, March 30 date on such short notice, Finjan explained that it
`could accept the 11 a.m., April 2 date on the condition that Juniper agree to extend the deadline by two
`business days so that Finjan can have sufficient time to receive the transcript from the deposition of Dr.
`Rubin and use it for the Reply Brief. Id., at 1. Juniper would not agree to the extension, stating that
`two business days which necessarily assumes that a rough transcript will be available for two business
`days, was enough time to review the transcript and use it in its reply brief. Because Juniper is
`unwilling to work with Finjan on scheduling, Finjan is forced to bring this motion. Id..
`Finjan’s need to address the new allegations set forth in Juniper’s opposition and Juniper’s
`unwillingness to negotiate a reasonable timeframe in which to address this information constitutes
`good cause for the Court to make this reasonable accommodation to the scheduling order.
`Furthermore, granting this motion will not prejudice Juniper in any way, as Juniper and the Court will
`still have 24 days to review the Reply Brief before the Summary Judgment hearing takes place. For
`these reasons, Finjan’s administrative motion to extend the deadline for the Reply Brief should be
`granted.
`
`1
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S ADMIN. MOT. TO EXTEND Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`REPLY DEADLINE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 401 Filed 03/22/19 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`II.
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 gives this Court the authority to modify the summary
`
`judgment schedule upon Finjan’s showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). In determining
`whether good cause exists, the Court should focus on Finjan’s diligence in bringing this motion to
`modify the schedule. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir.
`1992)(the standard for good cause to amend a scheduling order primarily considers the diligence of the
`party seeking amendment of the schedule, and may be granted if the schedule cannot reasonably be
`met despite the diligence of the party seeking extension.)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 advisory
`committee’s notes (1983 amendment)).
`Finjan has been diligent in bringing this motion and trying to obtain the discovery needed with
`enough time to file its reply to the motion for summary judgment on the Court’s schedule. Finjan
`immediately met and conferred with Juniper after receiving the only dates that Juniper was willing to
`make Dr. Rubin available. When Finjan realized that it was not going to be able to resolve the
`scheduling concerns it had in terms of taking Dr. Rubin’s deposition and having enough time to
`prepare a reply on March 21, Finjan brought this motion.
`Finjan’s request for a two day extension should be granted because Juniper’s position that there
`will be enough time to incorporate the deposition transcript ignores reality. Juniper unilaterally
`imposed a start time of 11 a.m. for the April 2 deposition, which means the deposition could last into
`the evening. Often times it can take up to a day to receive the rough transcript of a deposition. If that
`happens, Finjan would not have enough time to review the transcript, incorporate it into the Reply
`Brief, and finalize the Reply Brief before the April 4 filing deadline. Finjan brings this motion the day
`after it became aware that Juniper’s inability to compromise would render Finjan unable to comply
`with the schedule. Therefore, Finjan has been diligent in seeking to modify the deadline and good
`cause has been shown.
`Additionally, Juniper will not be prejudiced because it will still have ample time to analyze the
`Reply Brief prior to the hearing. Granting Finjan an extension of two (2) business days will make the
`Reply Brief due on April 8, giving Juniper 24 days to review it before the hearing on May 2. This
`2
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S ADMIN. MOT. TO EXTEND Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`REPLY DEADLINE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 401 Filed 03/22/19 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`extension will not modify or affect any other deadlines in the case schedule, and therefore, Juniper
`cannot demonstrate how it will be prejudiced by the Court granting this modest extension. Therefore,
`there are no reasons to deny the two (2) business days extension, and Finjan’s motion should be
`granted
`III. CONCLUSION
`For these reasons, the Court should grant Finjan’s administrative motion to extend the deadline
`for the Reply Brief by two (2) business days.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 22, 2019
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Kristopher Kastens
`Paul J. Andre (State Bar No. 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (State Bar No. 191404)
`Kristopher Kastens (State Bar No. 254797)
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`3
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S ADMIN. MOT. TO EXTEND Case No. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`REPLY DEADLINE
`
`