Codexis, Inc. v. Codex DNA, Inc.

Background

Codexis, Inc. filed a jointly submitted letter brief seeking to reopen fact discovery. It asked the court to compel documents in six categories and to permit depositions of three people. Codex DNA, Inc. opposed the requests, arguing that fact discovery had closed six months earlier, that the new requests could have been served during the discovery period, and that the proposed depositions would exceed the ten-deposition limit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2).

Codexis did not claim that it had served the requests during the permitted fact-discovery period. Instead, it argued that information obtained through discovery—including information from the deposition of Vikki Mi—created a need for additional documents and depositions.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that Codexis’s requests would effectively alter the case schedule established by Judge Maxine Chesney’s Second Amended Pretrial Preparation Order. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman explained that he did not have authority to change the presiding judge’s trial schedule. The opinion also noted that requests for relief from the case-management schedule had to be made to the assigned judge.

The court observed that reopening fact discovery could affect other deadlines, including the January 28, 2022 expert-discovery cutoff, deadlines for motions in limine, and the April 25, 2022 trial date.

Disposition

The court denied Codexis’s request to compel the additional discovery as untimely. It stated that, if Codexis wished to reopen discovery or seek another change to the case schedule, it had to file that request before Judge Chesney. The order did not decide whether the requested documents or depositions were substantively relevant or whether Codex DNA had withheld information.