Microsoft Corporation v. The Search People Enterprises LTD
2:22-cv-01113
| W.D. Wash. | Jun 12, 2025Background
- Microsoft sued The Search People Enterprises LTD and Mehtabjit Singh Teja alleging contributory copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and Lanham Act violations.
- The Court set a December 4, 2023, deadline for expert disclosures. This deadline was not revived or extended in subsequent amended scheduling orders.
- Discovery was extended more than once, but each amended order explicitly did not change already lapsed deadlines, including expert disclosures.
- Defendants sought to introduce a late-disclosed expert (Dr. Homayoun) and requested further briefing after the summary judgment motion was fully briefed.
- Defendants also sought relief under Rule 56(d) to delay summary judgment, citing their need for additional discovery—mainly regarding Microsoft’s technical ability to block unauthorized software activations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the deadline for expert disclosures revived by amended scheduling orders? | Original deadline lapsed and was not revived; default rule does not apply. | Amended orders implicitly revived the expert deadline to 90 days before trial. | Not revived; original lapse controls. |
| Should Defendants be permitted to offer a late-disclosed expert? | Prejudice and delay; Defendants were not diligent; no excusable neglect. | Believed deadline was later; no prejudice; Plaintiff has time to depose expert. | Not permitted; not excusable under Rule 37(c)(1). |
| Should the Court continue summary judgment under Rule 56(d) for more discovery/briefing? | Defendants were not diligent in seeking needed facts; any discovery failures are their own. | Additional discovery essential to opposition and defense. | Denied; Defendants not diligent, affidavit insufficient. |
| Is additional briefing required on technical issues after supplemental deposition? | No new facts material; issue fully briefed; additional briefing would cause prejudice. | Additional evidence and briefing needed for fair consideration. | Denied; record is sufficient for decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40 (2016) (district courts have inherent authority to manage dockets and deadlines)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment burdens clarified)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (standards for summary judgment and nonmoving party's obligations)
- Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 379 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) (disruption to schedule is not harmless; courts must enforce set schedules)