Sandisk Corporation v. Round Rock Research LLC

Filing 150

ORDER VACATING HEARING DATES AND REQUIRING FILING OF JOINT SCHEDULING PROPOSAL: Joint scheduling proposal due by 4/30/2013. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/15/13. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

SAN DISK CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROUND ROCK RESEARCH LLC

No. C 11-5243 RS
ORDER VACATING HEARING
DATES AND REQUIRING FILING OF
JOINT SCHEDULING PROPOSAL

Defendant.
____________________________________/

17
18

On February 27, 2013, Round Rock filed a motion for summary judgment on certain

19

affirmative defenses asserted by San Disk to the counterclaims in this action. On April 4, 2013,

20

San Disk filed a motion for summary judgment that certain patent claims asserted by Round Rock

21

are invalid on grounds of obviousness. On the same date, San Disk filed a separate motion for

22

summary judgment that others of Round Rock’s patent claims are invalid on grounds of

23

anticipation. It is unclear whether either party is presently anticipating filing yet more summary

24

judgment motions on additional issues in the future.

25

As a general rule, having multiple hearings in one case within a time span of a few weeks is

26

to be avoided. Additionally, while no provision of the federal or local rules expressly limit the

27

number of summary judgment motions a party may bring, seriatim or multiple motions ordinarily

28

will not be entertained absent a showing of good cause. Among other things, when a party files

1

more than one summary judgment motion without prior permission, or an approved case

2

management plan that contemplates proceeding in that fashion, it has effectively ignored the page

3

limit requirements of the local rules, even assuming there is an entirely legitimate justification for

4

addressing separate issues in separate motions.

5

Accordingly, the hearing dates on the pending summary judgment motions are vacated. The

scheduling proposal for any and all summary judgment motions they each can reasonably anticipate

8

may be filed in this action. To the extent the parties contemplate additional motions beyond those

9

already filed, they should explain why they believe it would be appropriate in this case to allow

10

multiple motions. Likewise, if the parties propose that summary judgment motions be heard on

11
For the Northern District of California

parties shall meet and confer, and within fifteen days of the date of this order shall file a joint

7

United States District Court

6

more than one date, they should explain why such seriatim motions would be in the interests of

12

justice and efficient case management in this instance.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: April 15, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2