Filed: May 20, 2016
Latest Update: May 20, 2016
Summary: PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF REMAINING CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (Second Request) CARL W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to the Court's permission given during the parties' May 3, 2016 settlement conference, and to address the fact that, to date, no claim construction hearing has been scheduled or claim construction order entered, Plaintiffs Rollsroller Enterprise, Inc. and Rollsroller AB (collectively, "Plaintiffs") hereby move the Court, with agreement of oppo
Summary: PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF REMAINING CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (Second Request) CARL W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to the Court's permission given during the parties' May 3, 2016 settlement conference, and to address the fact that, to date, no claim construction hearing has been scheduled or claim construction order entered, Plaintiffs Rollsroller Enterprise, Inc. and Rollsroller AB (collectively, "Plaintiffs") hereby move the Court, with agreement of oppos..
More
PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF REMAINING CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (Second Request)
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to the Court's permission given during the parties' May 3, 2016 settlement conference, and to address the fact that, to date, no claim construction hearing has been scheduled or claim construction order entered, Plaintiffs Rollsroller Enterprise, Inc. and Rollsroller AB (collectively, "Plaintiffs") hereby move the Court, with agreement of opposing counsel, to extend all presently scheduled deadlines in this case until after the Court has issued its claim construction ruling. The table below sets out the current remaining deadlines and the proposed new deadlines. This motion is being filed more than 21 days before the next currently scheduled deadline in this case. See LR IA 6-1, LR 26-4.
It is anticipated that the Court's claim construction ruling will heavily impact the parties' respective litigation and settlement positions. The parties will require time to digest the Court's claim construction ruling, to consider their positions for the Post-Claim Construction Settlement Conference, and to determine how the claim construction ruling will govern the course of remaining discovery (including anticipated depositions in Sweden and third-party discovery). The current schedule provides that "[f]act discovery shall close forty five (45) days after the entry of the Court's Claim Construction Order, but no later than June 22, 2016, unless extended by the Court" and that "[e]xpert discovery shall close one hundred-twenty (120) days after the entry of the Court's Claim Construction Order, but no later than September 8, 2016." ECF No. 27 at 2. As it now stands, there are currently less than 45 days between now and June 22, 2016, and less than 120 days between now and September 8, 2016; and no claim construction hearing has been scheduled, nor any order entered. Thus, it appears that the current schedule will not provide the parties with sufficient time to digest the claim construction ruling, to consider their options for the Post-Claim Construction Settlement Conference, and to determine how the claim construction ruling will determine the course of the parties' remaining discovery.
The parties' recognize that the Court prefers dates certain, as opposed to dates tied to the occurrence of certain events, as indicated by the quote below from the Court's July 30 Order denying, without prejudice, the parties' initial proposed scheduling order:
The Court recognizes that special scheduling review may be appropriate in this case. The Court is concerned, however, that the proposed discovery plan does not include dates certain, particularly with respect to the discovery cut-off date, the deadlines related to the parties' contentions, the claim construction deadlines under Local Rules 16.1-13, 16.1-14, and 16.1-15, and the date for the pre-claim construction settlement conference under Local Rule 16.1-19(a).
ECF No. 24 at 1, ll. 14-18.
However, each of the deadlines that specifically concerned the Court have already passed except for the completion of discovery, and completion of discovery is directly affected by, and therefore must be tied to, the entry of the Court's claim construction order, which has not yet occurred.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs propose, with Defendant's agreement, that the Court adopt the amended schedule presented in the table below.
Event Current Due Date Proposed Due Date
Claim construction hearing Court's convenience Court's convenience
and order (LPR 1-17)
Fact Discovery Cut-Off • 45 days after the entry of The later of 90 days after the
the Court's Claim entry of the Court's Claim
Construction Order Construction Order or
• But no later than June 22, October 14, 2016
2016, unless extended by the
Court
Opening expert reports on • 60 days after entry of claim The later of 90 days after the
issues for which the serving construction order entry of the Court's Claim
party has the burden of proof • But no later than June 24, Construction Order or
2016 October 14, 2016
Rebuttal expert reports on • 30 days after service of The later of 30 days after
issues for which the other opening expert reports service of opening expert
party has the burden of proof • But no later than July 26, reports or November 16, 2016
2016
Interim Status Report (in 60 days before the expert The later of 60 days before
compliance with Local Rule discovery cut-off the expert discovery cut-off
26-3) or October 16, 2016
Expert Discovery Cut-Off/Expert • 120 days after the entry of The later of 30 days after
Discovery Completed the Court's Claim service of rebuttal expert
Construction Order reports or December 16, 2016
• 30 days after service of
rebuttal expert reports
• But no later than September
8, 2016
Dispositive Motions • 30 days after the close of The later of 40 days after the
expert discovery close of expert discovery or
• But no later than September January 27, 2017
26, 2016.
Joint Pretrial Order • October 25, 2016 • 30 days after the deadline
(including Disclosures and • In the event dispositive for filing dispositive motions,
Objections pursuant to Fed. R. motions are filed, the date for i.e., February 27, 2017
Civ. P. 26(a)(3)) filing the Joint Pretrial Order • In the event dispositive
shall be suspended until motions are filed, the date for
December 15, 2016, or upon filing the Joint Pretrial Order
further Order by the Court shall be suspended until 80
extending the time period in days after the deadline for
which to file the Joint Pretrial filing dispositive motions, or
Order upon further Order by the
Court extending the time
period in which to file the
Joint Pretrial Order
Post-Claim Construction Once the Claim Construction Once the Claim Construction
Settlement Conference Order is entered, the parties Order is entered, the parties
will file a joint stipulation with will file a joint stipulation
three dates the parties are with three dates the parties
available. are available.
Pre-Trial Settlement Once the Joint Pretrial Order is Once the Joint Pretrial Order
Conference filed, the parties will file a joint is filed, the parties will file a
stipulation with three dates the joint stipulation with three
parties are available. dates the parties are available.
Motions in Limine 30 days prior to trial 30 days prior to trial
(The parties will address in the (The parties will address in
Pretrial Order whether there the Pretrial Order whether
should be a limitation on the there should be a limitation
number of motions in limine on the number of motions in
filed by each party.) limine filed by each party.)
Oppositions to Motions in 14 days after the motions in 14 days after the motions in
Limine limine are filed limine are filed
Replies in Support of Motions Subject to Court approval Subject to Court approval
in Limine
Extension of Scheduled 21 days before the expiration 21 days before the expiration
Deadlines of the subject deadline except of the subject deadline except
for good cause shown for good cause shown
Plaintiffs believe that the proposed new deadlines are necessary to accommodate an appropriate response to the Court's claim construction ruling. Plaintiffs propose slightly longer periods (1) between the claim construction ruling and the close of fact discovery and (2) between the claim construction ruling and opening expert reports to accommodate and potentially improve the parties' post-claim construction settlement discussions and to accommodate the parties' completion of discovery, including foreign and third party depositions, should those settlement discussions fail. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request the Court to modify the current case schedule as identified above. Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant's counsel have communicated in these regards and Defendant's counsel are in agreement that the currently pending deadlines need to be extended as requested.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
