Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

Filing 371

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CASE STATUS TELECONFERENCE re 370 Letter filed by Conceptus, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 14, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CONCEPTUS, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 No. C 09-02280 WHA Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CASE STATUS TELECONFERENCE HOLOGIC, INC., Defendant. / 15 16 In accordance with the parties’ stipulated request, the February 2011 trial and pretrial 17 conference dates were vacated pending decisions by the United States Supreme Court in two 18 patent cases. A case management conference was set for June 30 with the instruction that new 19 dates for the trial and pretrial conference would be set at that time. The parties, however, were 20 invited to request an earlier conference “[i]f both patent cases are decided by the Supreme Court 21 before June.” The parties also were advised that “a trial date in July or August is possible but 22 may be problematic due to an impending trial in a lengthy gang prosecution that is likely to 23 extend into the summer” (Dkt. No. 359). 24 By way of letter, plaintiff now requests “a brief case status teleconference” to set a trial 25 date. Plaintiff explains that a firm trial date would facilitate efficient trial preparation, 26 including coordination of witness travel schedules. Plaintiff represents that defendant “declined 27 to join in this request” (Dkt. No. 370). Plaintiff’s request fails for several reasons. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 First, letters are not the proper way to communicate with the Court. Any relief sought should be requested by way of a proper motion pursuant to the applicable rules. Second, teleconferences are not feasible with the courtroom equipment presently available. Third, good cause has not been shown to expedite the setting of a trial date. Plaintiff does not report that the controlling Supreme Court cases have been decided. Fourth, identifying “the earliest possible [trial] date convenient for the Court” as plaintiff 8 requests would be difficult at this time due to intervening criminal matters. The parties are 9 advised that the lengthy criminal trial to which the December 22 order alluded is now underway and is expected to last several more months. Accordingly, a trial date in July or August now 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 seems unlikely. 12 13 Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. The case management conference set for June 30, 2011, remains on calendar, and the new trial date will be set at that time. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: April 14, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?