Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Limited et al

Filing 1116

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 1094 1096 RIM's Motion for Leave to File; Denying 1106 Mformation Technologies, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File; Denying as Moot 1093 1105 Motions to File Under Seal. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 Plaintiff, v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, et al. Defendants. ___________________________________/ No. C-08-4990 EMC ORDER (1) DENYING RIM’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO OBJECTIONS TO RIM’S BILL OF COSTS; (2) DENYING MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS TO BILL OF COSTS; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 14 (Docket Nos. 1093, 1094, 1096, 1105, 1106) 15 16 17 On September 19, 2012, Defendants Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion 18 Corporation (“RIM”) filed an administrative motion for leave to file an opposition to Plaintiff 19 Mformation’s objections to RIM’s bill of costs. (Docket Nos. 1094, 1096.) Subsequently, Plaintiff 20 Mformation filed an administrative motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of its objections 21 to RIM’s bill of costs on September 26, 2012. (Docket No. 1106.) The Clerk of Court taxed costs 22 on October 16, 2012, rendering the parties’ motions for leave to file an opposition and a reply moot. 23 (Docket No. 1115.) Thus, the parties’ motions for leave to file an opposition and a reply are 24 DENIED AS MOOT. 25 In addition, neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Civil Local Rules provide 26 for the filing of oppositions or replies to objections to bills of cost. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54; N.D. Cal. 27 Civ. R. 54. If any party seeks to appeal the Clerk’s determination on RIM’s bill of costs, it may do 28 1 so by motion served within seven days of the Clerk’s taxing costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 54(d)(1). 3 Simultaneously with their administrative motions for leave to file an opposition and reply, 4 each party filed administrative motions for leave to file documents supporting their respective 5 motions under seal. (Docket Nos. 1105, 1093.) As both motions for leave to file have been denied, 6 the parties’ respective administrative motions for leave to file under seal are hereby DENIED AS 7 MOOT. 8 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 1093, 1094, 1096, 1105, and 1106. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Dated: October 16, 2012 13 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?