Rillito River Solar LLC v. Bamboo Industries, LLC

Filing 52

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/27/18 amending the pretrial scheduling order as follows: Opening Expert Reports due 1/11/2019, Rebuttal Expert Reports due 2/1/2019, Deadline for Dispositive Motion Hearings is 4/18/2019, Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement due 7/18/2019. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/25/2019 at 02:00 PM and Jury Trial set for 9/23/2019 at 09:00 AM, BOTH in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Andrew G. Strickland (SBN 272364) William B. Dyer III (Pro Hac Vice) LEE & HAYES, PLLC 1175 Peachtree St., NE 100 Colony Square, Suite 2000 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 Telephone: (404) 815-1900 Andrew.Strickland@leehayes.com Bill.Dyer@leehayes.com 6 7 Attorneys for Defendant 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 RILLITO RIVER SOLAR LLC DBA ECOFASTEN SOLAR, an Arizona limited liability company, 13 NO. 2:17-cv-00181-TLN-CKD STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DATES IN PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER Plaintiff, 14 vs. 15 17 BAMBOO INDUSTRIES LLC DBA SOLARHOOKS, a Delaware limited liability company, 18 Defendant. 16 Pursuant to L.R. 143 and 144, Defendant Bamboo Industries LLC doing business as 19 20 SolarHooks (“SolarHooks”), and Plaintiff Rillito River Solar LLC, doing business as EcoFasten 21 Solar (“EcoFasten”), hereby stipulate and agree to continue the dates in the Pretrial Scheduling 22 Order (Dkt. 15) as modified by the Minute Order on the Stipulation to Modify Pretrial 23 Scheduling Order (Dkt. 48) (collectively “the Modified Pretrial Scheduling Order”) by at least 90 24 days. 25 Good cause exists to continue the dates in the Modified Pretrial Scheduling Order. After 26 the Court’s entry of its Claim Construction Order on September 11, 2018 (ECF. No. 50), both 27 parties recognized an opportunity to narrow the issues in the case, and have begun the process of 28 1 STIPULATION TO TO CONTINUE DATES IN PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 1 scheduling a mediation to resolve their dispute. The parties are optimistic that mediation will 2 result in either a complete settlement or a significant narrowing of the number of patents and 3 accused products at issue. The number of patents and accused products at issue have a direct 4 impact on issues for which the parties plan to provide expert testimony, including, but not 5 limited to: infringement or non-infringement of the patent-claims-at-issue by SolarHooks, 6 invalidity or validity of the patent-claims-at-issue, and the calculation of damages. But, given the 7 current schedule, the parties will not be able to engage in mediation and detailed settlement 8 discussions before initial expert reports are due on October 12, 2018. As a result, the parties fear 9 they will have to expend significant resources providing expert testimony that may no longer be 10 relevant after the parties mediate and narrow the scope of their dispute. 11 The parties therefore request at least a 90-day continuance of all currently scheduled 12 dates to provide enough time to complete the mediation process and any later settlement 13 discussion arising from the mediation process. The parties also seek at least a 90-day 14 continuance so that they have sufficient time to prepare expert reports for any remaining issues 15 in dispute after mediation, if needed. The table below shows the current dates identified in the 16 Modified Pretrial Scheduling Order and the proposed dates the parties request through this 17 stipulation: 18 19 Event Current Date Stipulated Proposed Date* 20 Opening Expert Reports October 12, 2018 January 11, 2019 21 Rebuttal Expert Reports November 2, 2018 February 1, 2019 22 Deadline for Dispositive Motion Hearings January 10, 2019 April 12, 2019 23 Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement March 28, 2019 June 28, 2019 24 Final Pretrial Conference April 4, 2019 July 11, 2019 or later 25 26 Trial Date June 3, 2019 September 3, 2019 or later *The parties request a schedule that has at least the amount of time between dates as currently provided for in the Modified Pretrial Scheduling Order. Should the Court schedule the Final 27 28 2 STIPULATION TO TO CONTINUE DATES IN PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 1 Pretrial Conference after July 11 or the start of Trial Dates after September 3, the parties request a likewise continuance for the other dates in the calendar. 2 Therefore, to preserve resources of the parties, to provide adequate time for mediation, 3 related settlement discussion, and expert witnesses to prepare written reports following 4 mediation and related settlement discussion, the parties hereby stipulate to at least a 90-day 5 continuance of all dates in the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 15) as modified by the Minute 6 Order on the Stipulation to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 48). 7 DATED this 26th day of September, 2018. 8 LEE & HAYES PLLC 9 10 By: /s/ Andrew G. Strickland Andrew G. Strickland (SBN 272364) William B. Dyer III (Pro Hac Vice) 1175 Peachtree Street NE 100 Colony Square, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30361 11 12 13 14 Counsel for Defendant 15 KERCSMAR & FELTUS PLLC 16 17 By: /s/ Sean J. O’Hara Gregory B. Collins, (Pro Hac Vice) Sean J. O’Hara, (Pro Hac Vice) 7150 East Camelback Road, Suite 285 Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 18 19 20 21 Counsel for Plaintiff 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28 3 STIPULATION TO TO CONTINUE DATES IN PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 1 ORDER 2 The Court amends its Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows: 3 4 Event New Date 5 Opening Expert Reports January 11, 2019 6 Rebuttal Expert Reports February 1, 2019 7 Deadline for Dispositive Motion Hearings April 18, 2019 8 Joint Final Pretrial Conference Statement July 18, 2019 9 Final Pretrial Conference July 25, 2019, at 2:00 PM Jury Trial Date September 23, 2019, at 9:00 AM 10 11 12 Dated: September 27, 2018 13 14 15 16 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION TO TO CONTINUE DATES IN PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?