Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 205 Filed 06/07/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`RYAN R. SMITH (SBN 229323)
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`CHRISTOPHER D. MAYS (SBN 266510)
`cmays@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (SBN 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (SBN 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`TALIN GORDNIA (SBN 274213)
`tgordnia@wsgr.com
`STEPHANIE C. CHENG (SBN 319856)
`stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`DEFENDANT QUALYS INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO FINJAN LLC’S
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE A COMBINED
`REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO
`QUALYS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT OF NO MORE THAN 25
`PAGES
`
`)))))))))))))))
`
`FINJAN LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC.,
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR LEAVE
`
`

`

`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 205 Filed 06/07/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`Qualys Inc. (“Qualys”) opposes Finjan LLC’s (“Finjan”) Administrative Motion For Leave
`to File a Combined Reply and Opposition to Qualys’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No More
`than 25 Pages (D.I. 203). The Motion is a belated 11th-hour attempt by Finjan to change the ground
`rules for the parties’ summary judgment briefing and should be denied as unfairly prejudicial to
`Qualys.
`Finjan raised this issue for the first time only hours before filing its overlong brief. But the
`Court’s direction is clear. Finjan was allotted 25 pages for its one summary judgment motion, and
`Qualys was allotted 25 pages combined for its opposition and single cross-motion. Standing Order
`in Civil Cases (“S.O.”) at ¶¶ 9b, 9e; see also D.I. 160 at 3; Ex. 1, Pre-Filing Conference Tr. at
`42:11-151. Finjan was then allotted 15 pages for a combined reply to its motion and opposition to
`Qualys’s cross motion. S.O. at ¶ 9e; Ex. 1 at 42:18-20; 42:24-25
`The parties fully discussed the issues to be presented at Summary Judgment during the Pre-
`Filing Conference. See generally Ex. 1. Had Finjan legitimately believed it required additional
`pages for its combined reply and opposition to address the issues raised by Qualys’s motion, Finjan
`could (and should) have raised those issues either at the Pre-Filing Conference or at least before
`Qualys’s combined opposition and cross-motion were due, so that the parties could meaningfully
`meet and confer to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement. Instead, Finjan remained silent until
`the final hours before its brief was due, and well after the window had elapsed for Qualys to
`discuss, negotiate, and/or seek a reciprocal page-limit extension of its own combined summary
`judgment brief. Finjan’s belated and unilateral page limit extension thus prejudices Qualys and
`should be denied.
`Finjan argues that the Court’s Orders do not apply because Qualys’s cross-motion does not
`merely counter the same legal issues raised in Finjan’s opening brief (and so, according to Finjan,
`it is not a “cross-motion” according to the Court’s Standing Orders). Of course, Finjan’s
`interpretation of the term “cross-motion” is unsupported and is inconsistent with the Court’s
`Orders, its instructions to the parties at the Pre-Filing Conference, and the Minutes thereto. See
`
`1 “Ex.” refers to the exhibits to the Mays Declaration, filed herewith.
`1
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR LEAVE
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 205 Filed 06/07/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`S.O. at ¶¶ 9b, 9e; D.I. 160 at 3; Ex. 1 at 42:11-15; D.I. 186 (Minutes of Pre-Filing Conference
`stating that Qualys was to file a “Single Brief Opposition to Motion and Cross-Motion for
`Summary Judgment” and Finjan was to file a “Single Reply Brief to its own Motion and
`Opposition to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.”). There is no surprise here: Finjan knew
`exactly which issues Qualys intended to seek summary judgment on and that those issues were
`different from the ones Finjan raised in its opening brief. Qualys objects to Finjan’s thread-bare
`attempt to deflect blame on to Qualys for Finjan’s own failure to timely raise this issue.
`For the foregoing reasons, Qualys requests that the Court deny Finjan’s motion.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`Dated: June 7, 2021
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Christopher D. Mays
`CHRISTOPHER D. MAYS
`
`Counsel for
`QUALYS 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
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`2
`
`QUALYS’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR LEAVE
`
`