2026-07-18 - LD Paris - Valeo v. Bosch - UPC-CFI-0001963/2025

Français : extension de délais, documents accessibles dans le cadre d'un précédent cercle de confidentialité, défaut de diligences du défendeur English: Time extension, documents made available under a previous confidentiality agreement; the defendant’s failure to exercise due diligence

The Paris Local Division refused an extension of the R. 29(d) RoP deadlines sought under R. 9.3 RoP by defendants who said they could not prepare their rejoinder because they had only a redacted version of the claimant's reply. The judge-rapporteur found that an unredacted version had been filed in the CMS on the same day, classified as accessible to the Court only, while the redacted version was shared with the parties, and that the redacted passages were all drawn from documents produced by the defendants themselves and covered by an earlier confidentiality order. The defendants could therefore identify the sources from the pleading itself and could have asked the Registry or opposing counsel for access at once; they waited more than a month, and access was in fact granted within an hour and a half of asking. A party cannot rely on its own lack of diligence to obtain more time. The objection that the reply had been filed only in the infringement workflow of the CMS and not in the workflow of the revocation counterclaim was rejected as showing no prejudice, the two proceedings being linked in the CMS and the defendants themselves having filed a single combined pleading and asked for joint adjudication.