ORDER DENYING MOTION TO LIMIT, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. ("KSEA") requests various forms of miscellaneous relief styled as: (i) a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the August 11, 2016 Case Management Scheduling Order, which requires KSEA to reduce the number of asserted claims or, alternatively, (ii) a motion for clarification that KSEA may assert additional claims on a showing of good cause, and (iii) a motion to limit the number of prior art invalidity theories asserted by Stryker Corporation and Stryker Communications, Inc. (collectively, "Stryker"). These are case management issues. They should be briefed and argued at the next case management conference. As styled, KSEA's motions are improper and lack merit. First, a motion for reconsideration, under Local Rule 7-9, is meant for contesting substantive legal orders, not scheduling orders. Second, the relief sought by KSEA's motion for clarification is unnecessary. As Stryker notes, the August 11, 2016 order is a scheduling order and is therefore subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Under that rule, "[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Thus, the authority for KSEA to seek to modify the order for good cause already exists. Third, the motion to limit prior art references is premature and KSEA provides no justification for resolving this issue outside of the normal case management context.1 For these reasons, KSEA's motions are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.