ORDER RE NOVEMBER 17, 2016 HEARING

Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 66, 67, 69

KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.

Currently pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, (2) Defendant's motion for summary judgment, (3) Defendant's motion for evidentiary sanctions, and (4) Defendant's motion to partially exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's expert. (Docket Nos. 52, 66, 67, 69.) These motions are scheduled for hearing on November 17, 2016.

In light of the fact that this case was reassigned to the undersigned from Judge Grewal, and that the undersigned has not had the benefit of a tutorial,1 the Court believes it to be more constructive to schedule a tutorial on November 17, 2016, in lieu of a motions hearing. Each side will be permitted 30-45 minutes to present a summary of the background of the technology involved, an explanation of the nature of the problem the inventor sought to solve, and reference to the prior art in existence at the time of conception. The patent holder will make the first presentation. Visual aids are highly encouraged, and the parties are to provide a copy of any prior art or documents that they rely on. The Court would prefer if someone other than counsel makes the presentation. No argument or examination will be permitted.

In addition to the tutorial, the parties must be prepared to address the following matters at the November 17, 2016 hearing:

The Court also observes that both parties fail to provide specific pinpoint citations (or any citations, in some instances) to the record. Defendant, in particular, cites to wholesale exhibits. (E.g., Dkt. No. 69 at 2:8 (citing to the entirety of Exhibit 3, a 275-page exhibit, and Exhibit 8, which consists of over 50 pages of deposition testimony); 14:28-15:1 (citing the entirety of Exhibits 8, 46, and 47); 15:25 (citing to the entirety of Exhibit 13, a 120-page expert report); 16:22 (citing to the entirety of Exhibit 13); 19:26-10 (providing no citations whatsoever, despite referring to specific portions of Plaintiff's expert's disclosure and Visto's testimony ); 23:5 (referring to Markups A and B but providing no explanation of what these are and what exhibits they are found in).2) Plaintiff also makes broad, factual arguments relying on evidence and testimony that Plaintiff then fails to cite. (E.g., Dkt. No. 78 at 27:3-10 (asserting that Plaintiff will produce photographs and testimony, but not citing to any exhibits).)

It is not the Court's role to scour over 1,500 pages of exhibits for the specific portions of exhibits that the parties rely on. Thus, to the extent the parties want the Court to consider exhibits, they must provide specific pincites, i.e., the page number for expert reports, the column and line numbers for patents, and the page and line numbers for deposition testimony. At the November 17, 2016 hearing, the parties may provide the Court with a list of pincites in the following format:

The motion hearing on the pending motions is continued to December 15, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.