Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 405 Filed 03/26/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Alan Heinrich (SBN 212782)
`aheinrich@irell.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Kevin Wang (SBN 318024)
`kwang@irell.com
`Ingrid Petersen (SBN 313927)
`ipetersen@irell.com
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`)
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`)
`
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`Plaintiff,
`)
`INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
`
`)
`FINJAN, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE
`vs.
`
`)
`MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE
`
`)
`FOR FINJAN’S REPLY
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`)
`Corporation,
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10658436
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 405 Filed 03/26/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) is essentially indifferent as to whether the Court grants
`or denies Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) Administrative Motion To Extend The Deadline For Finjan’s
`Reply (the “Motion,” Dkt. No. 401), as the primary impact of that decision will be on the amount
`of time the Court has to study the issues before the May 2 hearing date. In the event that the Court
`does grant Finjan’s Motion, however, Juniper would request a parallel extension because Finjan has
`not yet even provided a deposition date for one of the fact witnesses whose testimony it relies upon,
`as discussed below. Aside from requesting parallel treatment, the remainder of this response is
`provided merely to correct certain errors in Finjan’s Motion so the Court has the complete and
`correct factual record.
`Finjan’s request for additional time to prepare its reply brief is premised largely on its
`assertion that it needs extra time to respond to the “new” allegations in Juniper’s opposition.
`Dkt. 401 at 1 (“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.”). To some extent, Finjan is
`correct that Juniper raised “new” arguments in its opposition because Juniper was responding to
`arguments that Finjan raised for the first time in its opening summary judgment brief. Of course,
`there is nothing wrong with the parties raising arguments in their moving or opposition papers; that
`is how motion practice works (although Finjan also disclosed several previously unidentified
`infringement theories, which is improper pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1 and is the subject of a separate
`motion). Finjan does not, however, explain when or how Juniper should have outlined the fairly
`obvious flaws in Finjan’s infringement arguments before Finjan even made these arguments.
`Finjan’s secondary basis for an extension is the timing of Dr. Rubin’s deposition. But this
`is the timing that Finjan itself requested for the deposition. As Finjan’s evidence shows, back on
`March 19, Juniper offered to make Dr. Rubin available either on March 30 (four business days in
`advance of the reply deadline) or on April 2.1 Juniper provide these dates at least 11 days before
`the first proposed deposition date so that Finjan would have ample time to make any necessary
`arrangements. See Dkt. 401-2 at 4 (Juniper’s March 19 email telling Finjan that Dr. Rubin is
`
`
`1 Juniper offered to begin the deposition on April 2 at 11 a.m. in order to accommodate Dr. Rubin’s
`teaching schedule at Johns Hopkins University.
`
`10658436
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 405 Filed 03/26/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`available for deposition on March 30). Notwithstanding the 11 days of notice Juniper provided
`before the March 30 date, Finjan claimed that it could not proceed on March 30 because of “such
`short notice,” and it elected to take Dr. Rubin’s deposition on April 2. See Dkt. No. 401 at 1.
`If the Court does grant Finjan an extension to Finjan’s reply deadline, then the Court should
`grant the same extension to Juniper for substantially similar reasons. In particular, Finjan relied in
`its summary judgment opposition on the testimony of inventor Shlomo Touboul (Dkt. No. 393 at
`6), but Finjan still has not provided a date for Mr. Touboul’s deposition despite Juniper’s request
`back on March 19. Ex. 1 (Juniper’s March 19 request for a date to depose Mr. Touboul regarding
`his testimony that Finjan relied upon in its reply). Thus, to the extent Dr. Rubin’s April 2 deposition
`constitutes good cause to extend Finjan’s reply deadline, Mr. Touboul’s still-unscheduled deposition
`similarly constitutes good cause to extend Juniper’s reply deadline.
`
`Dated: March 26, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`By: /s/ Rebecca L. Carson
`Rebecca L. Carson
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10658436
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER’S RESPONSE TO
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`