Centrify Corporation v. Quest Software, Inc.

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY

N.D. Cal.February 1, 2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EDWARD V. ANDERSON (SBN 83148) evanderson@sidley.com DUY D. NGUYEN (SBN 246271) ddnguyen@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1001 Page Mill Road Building 1 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: 650-565-7000 Facsimile: 650-565-7100 PHILIP W. WOO (SBN 196459) pwoo@sidley.com MARC R. ASCOLESE (SBN 251397) mascolese@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-772-1200 Facsimile: 415-772-7400 Attorneys for Plaintiff Centrify Corporation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION CENTRIFY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. QUEST SOFTWARE, INC. Defendant. Case No. 10-3873-CW CENTRIFY CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO QUEST SOFTWARE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CENTRIFY CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO QUEST SOFTWARE'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF Date: N/A Time: N/A Courtroom: 2, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken Case4:10-cv-03873-CW Document42 Filed02/01/11 Page1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- CENTRIFY CORP.'S OPPOSITION TO QUEST SOFTWARE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF CASE NO. 4:10-cv-3873-CW "The local rules are structured to deter an endless cycle of filings and counter-filings." Michael Taylor Designs, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2010 WL 221658 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2011). Defendant Quest Software's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief In Support of Its Motion to Stay undermines the Local Rules' purpose of promoting judicial economy. Defendant contends that "circumstances have changed" because Centrify filed a motion to stay the Utah matter. However, Defendant was aware of Centrify's intended filing months ago, apprised this Court of the filing, and argued the relevance of the filing in Defendant's Reply brief. See Defendant's Reply In Support of Its Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 36) at 1:16-17, 3:14-25. No cause exists for Defendant's Motion for Leave; it is a classic example of over- litigation, and should be denied. Alternatively, should the Court be inclined to consider Defendant's Supplemental Brief, Centrify respectfully requests an opportunity to address the issues raised therein by hereby seeking leave to submit Centrify's response to Defendant's Supplemental Brief, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dated: February 1, 2011 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP /s/ Edward V. Anderson EDWARD V. ANDERSON ( 83148) evanderson@sidley.com DUY D. NGUYEN (SBN 246271) ddnguyen@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1001 Page Mill Road, Bldg. 1 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: 650-565-7000 Facsimile: 650-565-7100 Case4:10-cv-03873-CW Document42 Filed02/01/11 Page2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- CENTRIFY CORP.'S OPPOSITION TO QUEST SOFTWARE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF CASE NO. 4:10-cv-3873-CW PHILIP W. WOO (SBN 196459) pwoo@sidley.com MARC R. ASCOLESE (SBN 251397) mascolese@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-772-1200 Facsimile: 415-772-7400 Attorneys for Defendant Centrify Corporation Case4:10-cv-03873-CW Document42 Filed02/01/11 Page3 of 3