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 for contributory copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and Lanham Act violations.
- The initial deadline for expert disclosure lapsed on December 4, 2023, and was not revived despite subsequent scheduling order amendments.
- Defendants sought, late in discovery, to introduce an expert (Dr. Homayoun) and requested that the expert disclosure deadline be extended.
- Defendants also requested additional briefing and a continuance under FRCP 56(d) to supplement their summary judgment opposition with new deposition and expert evidence.
- The Court had already provided for a limited supplemental deposition on technical topics, but Defendants argued this discovery was essential to their "implied customer license" defense.
- The procedural posture involved Microsoft’s summary judgment motion and Defendants' attempts to supplement or delay that briefing with late evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the expert disclosure deadline was reset by amended scheduling orders | No, initial deadline remained; not revived by later orders | Yes, revisions implicitly revived/extended expert deadline to just before trial | Court agreed with Microsoft; deadline not revived or reset by amended orders |
| Whether late disclosure of expert is excusable under FRCP 37(c)(1) | No, defendants not diligent, this prejudices Microsoft | Yes, new testimony only recently became relevant; brief extension causes no harm | Excuse denied; lack of diligence, potential prejudice, and trial disruption |
| Whether to permit additional briefing and evidence post-summary judgment briefing | No, case is fully briefed, Defendants had ample chance | Yes, new deposition/expert evidence allegedly material to defense | Denied; Defendants not diligent, already had opportunity to present facts |
| Whether Defendants met requirements for Rule 56(d) continuance | Did not comply with formal Rule 56(d) requirements; no good cause | Claimed affidavit and upcoming discovery justified continuance | Request denied; affidavit insufficient, Defendants lacked diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40 (2016) (district courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets and deadlines)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: party must designate specific facts to show genuine issue for trial)
- Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 379 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) (court’s schedules must be enforced; disruption is not harmless)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment burdens)
- Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (missing facts not presumed at summary judgment once discovery closes)