UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California
October 24, 2011
CUSTOMER INFORMATION QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge
DISCOVERY ORDER RE:
COURT OURT COURT 13 Pending before the Court is the parties' joint discovery dispute letter regarding Centrify's Enforce Court Orders and Strike Centrify's Amended Infringement Contentions. Dkt. No. 90. Quest request to compel Quest to identify customers who use technology that, according to Centrify, 15 infringes the '005 patent at issue. Dkt. No. 98. In the letter, the parties refer to Quest's Motion to maintains that the Court should not determine the present dispute until after it resolves Quest's motion to strike. However, on October 5, 2011, the Court denied Quest's motion without prejudice 19 and ordered the parties to comply with the undersigned's discovery standing order. As the parties have not met and conferred and filed a joint letter regarding Quest's motion to strike, it is not 21 presently before the Court. Therefore, the Court finds it prudent to defer any ruling on the present 22 discovery dispute until after the motion to strike has been resolved..
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.