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)

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