You're viewing Docket Item 57 from the case Arduino, LLC v. Arduino S.R.L. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:










Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-10181-DJC







ARDUINO, LLC,


Plaintiff,


-v-


ARDUINO S.R.L. f/k/a SMART PROJECTS
S.R.L.; GHEO SA; CC LOGISTICS, LLC;
MAGYC NOW LTD; DOG HUNTER INC.; DOG
HUNTER LLC; DOG HUNTER AG; TULYP
HOLDING SA; GIANLUCA MARTINO;
FEDERICO MUSTO; and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.







Case 1:15-cv-10181-DJC Document 57 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM

FOR MODIFICATION OF THE SCHEDULING ORDER (UNOPPOSED)

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 16.1(g),




Plaintiff Arduino LLC (“Arduino” or Plaintiff”) respectfully requests that the dates in the current

Scheduling Order (dkt. 35) be extended by sixty (60) days to allow the parties sufficient time to

manage the unexpected amount of electronically stored information being produced in this case

and to complete discovery (including multiple depositions) in an orderly fashion. Counsel for

Defendants in this action has indicated that the Defendants will not oppose Plaintiff’s request.

I.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Plaintiff filed its original Complaint on January 23, 2015 and its First Amended

Complaint on April 23, 2015. The Scheduling Order was entered on July 22, 2015. The first

named Defendant Arduino S.r.l. f/k/a Smart Projects S.r.l. was served August 17, 2015.

Defendants served their first set of discovery requests on August 28, 2015. Plaintiff has made

4578198.1

Case 1:15-cv-10181-DJC Document 57 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 5

three productions to Defendants between November 4, 2015 and December 18, 2015. Plaintiff

served discovery requests on various dates between December 18, 2015 and December 31, 2015.

Defendants’ deadline to serve discovery responses is February 5, 2016.

Counsel for the parties conferred by telephone on February 3, 2016 in order to discuss the

status of discovery and facilitate its orderly and timely completion. Counsel discussed several

outstanding discovery issues, including completion of paper discovery and scheduling of

discovery depositions. Both sides acknowledged that they are dealing with an unexpectedly

large volume of electronically stored information. Before depositions may proceed, each party

must review and digest large volumes of material

II. ARGUMENT

A court may modify its scheduling order for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). When

seeking to modify a scheduling order, the good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the

moving party. Flores-Silva v. McClintock-Hernandez, 710 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2013). Prejudice

to the opposing party caused by the delay is also relevant. O’Connell v. Hyatt Hotels of Puerto

Rico, 357 F.3d 152, 155 (1st Cir. 2004).

Good cause exists in this case to extend the deadlines of the Scheduling Order.

The unanticipated amount of electronically-stored information, and the difficulty in

collecting, reviewing, and preparing those materials for production to the other party have

delayed Plaintiff’s ESI production. Plaintiff believes that it is now in possession of all relevant

ESI and has committed to rolling productions beginning February 5, 2016. Counsel for

Defendants in the February 3, 2016 conference also indicated that they were surprised by the

volume of electronically stored information collected from Defendants. By the time the parties

complete their productions, which will likely take at least three of the five and a half weeks



2

Case 1:15-cv-10181-DJC Document 57 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 5

remaining in the current discovery period, there will be little time to effectively review and

evaluate the productions in time to take depositions prior to March 15, 2016, the current deadline

for fact discovery. This shortage of time has only enhanced by the inherent scheduling issues

posed by scheduling the depositions of at least seven individuals who live in at least four

different countries.

Defendants will not be prejudiced by the extension of the discovery deadlines set forth in

the scheduling order. Defendants will benefit the same as Plaintiff from the additional time to

review documents and prepare for depositions.

III. CONCLUSION

Because good cause exists in this case to modify the scheduling order and none of the

parties will be prejudiced by the extension, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court extend

all of the dates in the current scheduling order by sixty (60) days to allow for the parties to

efficiently complete document production and depositions.

Dated: February 5, 2016































































Respectfully submitted,








/s/ John L. Welch
John L. Welch BBO#522040
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
600 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2206
Telephone: (617) 646-8000
Email: John.Welch@WolfGreenfield.com

Martin B. Schwimmer (pro hac vice)
Lori L. Cooper (pro hac vice)
LEASON ELLIS LLP
One Barker Avenue, Fifth Floor
White Plains, New York 10601
Telephone: (914) 288-0022
Email: Schwimmer@LeasonEllis.com
Email: Cooper@LeasonEllis.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff





3

Case 1:15-cv-10181-DJC Document 57 Filed 02/05/16 Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATION UNDER LOCAL RULE 7.1(A)(2)



Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2), the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff, Arduino, LLC,

hereby certifies that he conferred with counsel for Defendants, and that said Defendants have

indicated that they do not oppose this motion.









4

Case 1:15-cv-10181-DJC Document 57 Filed 02/05/16 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE





I certify that this document is being filed through the Court’s electronic filing

system, which serves counsel for other parties who are registered participants as identified on the

Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Any counsel for other parties who are not registered

participants are being served by first class mail on the date of electronic filing.








/s/ John L. Welch
John L. Welch





5