Fortinet, Inc. v. Fortanix, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-06900
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Fortinet v. Fortanix: Judge Chesney denied Fortanix’s request to move the trial and pretrial conference because counsel lacked good cause.
Fortanix, Inc., its defense counsel, and Fortinet, Inc.; the order addressed Fortanix’s request to postpone the scheduled pretrial conference and trial.
What happened
In Fortinet, Inc. v. Fortanix, Inc., Fortanix asked the Northern District of California to move its June 2022 pretrial conference and trial dates by 90 days. The parties had jointly requested those dates more than a year earlier.
Fortanix cited its lead defense counsel’s trial conflict in another case in Florida and the counsel’s planned absence from the country. Fortinet opposed the request. Fortanix also asked alternatively to move the trial to July 5, 2022.
The court denied the motion and vacated the May 27, 2022 hearing. Judge Maxine M. Chesney found that Fortanix had not shown the required good cause because its counsel helped create the conflict and had waited about two and a half months to raise it.
The detailed version
- Fortinet, Inc. v. Fortanix, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-06900
- Maxine Chesney
- May 13, 2022
Background
Fortanix moved to continue, meaning postpone, the pretrial conference and trial dates in this case. The parties had jointly requested a June 2022 trial at a January 8, 2021 case-management conference. The court scheduled trial for June 20, 2022, and the pretrial conference for June 7, 2022.
Fortanix’s stated reasons were that its lead defense counsel had a trial in another case in Florida scheduled to begin June 6, 2022, and that counsel would be out of the country from July 14 through August 15, 2022. Fortanix sought a 90-day continuance and alternatively requested a July 5 trial date. Fortinet opposed the motion.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause. The court explained that the party seeking the change must show diligence in requesting it. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry ends.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Jayaram Law, Inc., which had represented Fortanix throughout the case, helped create the conflict. The Florida case had originally been scheduled for trial on October 25, 2021, and was later continued twice. On January 26, 2022, Jayaram asked the Florida court to continue that trial and represented that Jayaram and other counsel were available during the weeks of June 6 and June 13. The Florida court then moved the Florida trial to June 6, 2022.
The court found that Jayaram knew about the pretrial conference and trial dates in this case, which had been set more than a year earlier, but waited about two and a half months to tell Fortinet and the court about the potential conflict. Jayaram explained that it had hoped the case would settle. The court also noted that Fortanix had not shown that another Jayaram attorney could not represent it if needed. The court stated that lead defense counsel did not need to leave Florida to attend the June 7 pretrial conference because the conference could be conducted by videoconference.
Disposition
The court vacated the hearing scheduled for May 27, 2022, and denied Fortanix’s motion to continue the pretrial conference and trial dates. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered the order on May 13, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.