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)
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?