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)

Download PDF
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

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?