Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ordnance Technologies (North America) Inc. v. Raytheon Co.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

January 27, 2014

ORDNANCE TECHNOLOGIES (NORTH AMERICA) INC., Plaintiff,
v.
RAYTHEON COMPANY, Defendant. RAYTHEON COMPANY AND RAYTHEON MISSILE SYSTEMS, Counter Claimants,
v.
ORDNANCE TECHNOLOGIES (NORTH AMERICAN) INC., Counter Defendant.

ORDER

CINDY K. JORGENSON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are the discovery disputes regarding the request for documents and the notices of depositions. Counsel presented argument to the Court on January 22, 2014.

Requests for Documents

Raytheon Missile Systems (collectively, with Raytheon Company, "Raytheon") asserts the request for documents by Ordinance Technologies (North America), Inc. (collectively, with it predecessor in interest Ordinance Technologies (UK) Limited, "Ordinance") is untimely. Ordnance acknowledges the request was served at 5:05 p.m. on December 31, 2014 - Raytheon did not receive the documents until January 2, 2014. In other words, allowing Raytheon 30 days to respond from January 2, 2014, would result in a response deadline past the discovery deadline. See Doc. 24; see also Adobe Systems Inc. v. Christenson, No. 2:10-cv-00422-LRH-GWF, 2011 WL 1322529, * 2 (D.Nev. April 5, 2011) (motion to compel discovery denied because, among others, "[c]ommon sense dictates that any requests for discovery must be made in sufficient time to allow the opposing party to respond before the termination of discovery" (citation omitted)).[1] The rule guiding the computation of time does not provide that a deadline includes a time. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Additionally, the Court is not aware of any other rule that includes an implicit time of day for a deadline. Rather, it appears courts designate a specific time if one is to be applicable. See e.g. Shaver v. Arizona Fire & Water, No. CV 11-01815-PHX-NVW, 2012 WL 1150537 (D.Ariz. April 5, 2012); U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Ian Schrager Hotels, Inc., No. CV 99-0987GAFRCX, 2000 WL 307470 (C.D.Cal. March 8, 2000)

Therefore, the time of the delivery does not preclude a finding of timely service if valid service was effectuated. The applicable rule states:

(b) Service: How Made.
(1) Serving an Attorney. If a party is represented by an attorney, service under this rule must be made on the attorney unless the court orders service on the party.
(2) Service in General. A paper is served under this rule by:
(A) handing it to the person;
(B) leaving it:
(i) at the person's office with a clerk or other person in charge or, if no one is in charge, in a conspicuous place in the office; or
(ii) if the person has no office or the office is closed, at the person's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there;
* * * * *

Fed.R.Civ.P. 5. As stated by the Seventh Circuit ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.