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)
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?