Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation ( 2020 )

1 |) DURIE TANGRI LLP DARALYN J. DURIE (SBN 169825) 2 || ddurie@durietangri.com DAVID McGOWAN (SBN 154289) 3 || dmcgowan@durietangri.com EUGENE NOVIKOV (SBN 257849) 4 || enovikov@durietangri.com LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) 5 || □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ RAGHAV R. KRISHNAPRIYAN (SBN 273411) 6 || rkrishnapriyan@durietangri.com MATTHEW W. SAMUELS (SBN 294668) 7 || msamuels@durietangri.com 217 Leidesdorff Street 8 || San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-362-6666 9 || Facsimile: 415-236-6300 10 || YOUNG BASILE HANLON & MACFARLANE, P.C. JEFFREY D. WILSON (Pro Hac Vice) 11 || wilson@youngbasile.com ANDREW R. BASILE, JR. (SBN 208396) 12 || abasile@youngbasile.com EDDIE D. WOODWORTH (Pro Hac Vice) 13 || woodworth@youngbasile.com RYAN T. MCCLEARY (Pro Hac Vice) 14 || mcecleary@youngbasile.com 3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 624 15 || Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 649-3333 16 || Facsimile: (248) 649-3338 17 || Attorneys for Plaintiff PLEXXIKON INC. 18 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 OAKLAND DIVISION 22 || PLEXXIKON INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-04405-HSG 23 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF PLEXXIKON INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION AND PROPOSED] 24 V. ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO SUBMIT PUBLIC VERSIONS OF DOCUMENTS 25 || NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION Ctrm: 2- 4th Floor 26 Judge: Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 7 Defendant. 28 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and Northern District of California Civil 2 || Local Rule 6-3, Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc. (“Plexxikon”) respectfully requests that the Court enter an order 3 || extending the time for Plexxikon to file public versions of documents previously filed by Plexxikon for 4 || which the proposed sealing has been denied or denied-in-part as a result of the Court’s March 13, 2020 5 || Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Seal (“Sealing Order”), and allowing Plexxikon’s 6 || filing of such documents (the “Public Documents”) on March 23, 2020, ECF Nos. 396-405. Defendant 7 || Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (“Novartis”) does not oppose this motion. See Decl. Matthew W. 8 || Samuels in Supp. Mot. (“Samuels Decl.”) § 6. I. BACKGROUND 10 Plexxikon and Novartis filed a number of administrative motions to file under seal in connection 11 || with their summary judgment, Daubert, and in limine motions. See generally Sealing Order. On March 12 || 13, 2020, the Court issued a Sealing Order granting in part and denying in part the parties’ administrative 13 || motions to file under seal, and directing the parties “‘to file public versions of all documents for which the 14 || proposed sealing has been denied, as indicated in the chart above, within seven days from the date of this 15 || order.” Jd. at 39. 16 On March 20, 2020, counsel for Plexxikon twice attempted to file the Public Documents as 17 || attachments to a Notice of Compliance. Samuels Decl. 9 3-4. On both occasions, CM/ECF was unable 18 || to accept the filing, and instead indicated that “[a]n internal error has occurred” and that CM/ECF “could 19 || not open [the] context file.” Jd., Exs. A, B. 20 On March 23, 2020, counsel for Plexxikon contacted the California Northern District Court CM/ECF Help Desk at 866-638-7829. Id. 95. The Help Desk representative explained that the error 22 || may have been due either to the number of attachments to the Notice or to the system timing out given 23 || the length of time required to upload the documents, and advised that counsel may have more luck first 24 || filing a notice with approximately 7 attachments and then filing the remaining attachments in batches of 25 || approximately 7 that are linked back to the notice. Jd. Following this call, counsel for Plexxikon filed a 26 || Notice of Compliance with Court Order Dated March 13, 2020 (Dkt. No. 386), ECF No. 396, with the 27 || Public Documents as attachments, ECF Nos. 397-405. See id. 28 1 || I. DISCUSSION 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) provides that for any act that must be done by a party 3 || within a specified time frame, the court may “for good cause, extend the time . . . after the time has 4 || expired if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Courts in the 5 || Ninth Circuit examine factors such as the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party, the length of the 6 || delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, and whether the movant 7 || acted in good faith. Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997). “[T]he 8 || determination of whether a party’s neglect is excusable ‘is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of 9 || all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.’” Jd. at 382 (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. 10 || Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). “This rule, like all the Federal Rules o1 11 || Civil Procedure, ‘[is] to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are 12 || tried on the merits.’” Ahanchian vy. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010) 13 || (alteration in original) (citations omitted). 14 The failure to timely file the Public Documents is the result of excusable neglect. As to the first 15 || Briones factor, prejudice, Novartis does not oppose this request and will not be prejudiced should the 16 || Court permit the delayed filing of the Public Documents. As to the second, the length of the delay and it: 17 || impact on judicial proceedings, Plexxikon’s one-day delay will not impact the proceedings in this case, 18 || as the Court has had access to under-seal versions of the Public Documents and therefore has had the 19 || ability to review the merits of the parties’ summary judgment, Daubert, and in limine motions. The third 20 || and fourth factors, the reason for the delay and the movant’s good faith, also weigh in favor of granting Plexxikon’s motion here. As explained above and in the accompanying declaration, the delay was due tc 22 || an unforeseen error on the part of CM/ECF that caused Plexxikon to miss the deadline. 23 || TI. CONCLUSION 24 For the foregoing reasons, Plexxikon respectfully requests that the Court issue an order extending 25 || the time for Plexxikon to file the Public Documents from March 20, 2020 to March 23, 2020 and allow 26 || the filing of such documents. 27 28 PLAINTIFF PLEXXIKON INC.’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF/CASENO. 1}| Dated: March 23, 2020 DURIE TANGRI LLP 2 By: /s/ Matthew W. Samuels 3 MATTHEW W. SAMUELS 4 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 PLEXXIKON INC. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF PLEXXIKON INC.’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF/CASENO. | PROPOSED) ORDER 2 Having considered Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Submit 3 || Public Versions of Documents and the materials submitted in connection therewith, the Court GRANTS 4 || Plexxikon’s motion. The Court finds the March 23, 2020 filing of Plexxikon’s Notice of Compliance 5 || with Court Order Dated March 13, 2020 (Dkt. No. 386), ECF No. 396, and the exhibits thereto, ECF 6 || Nos. 396-405, to be the result of excusable neglect, and allows their filing under Federal Rule of Civil 7 || Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 6-3. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: 3/24/2020 7 4 Bp 4. Mbl_| \. HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF PLEXXIKON INC.’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF/CASENO.