Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. TIBCO Software, Inc. et al

Filing 175

ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/26/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2013)

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 VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC., 12 13 14 15 16 No. C 11-06638 RS Plaintiff, ORDER RE PAGE LIMITATIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS v. TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant. ____________________________________/ 17 18 Civil Local Rule 7-2(b) states that motions must be made in the form of one filed document 19 not exceeding 25 pages in length. Currently, in this case, VSI has filed two documents moving for 20 summary judgment totaling 25 pages in length and TIBCO has filed three documents moving for 21 summary judgment totaling 75 pages in length (one of which is 29 pages, leave having been granted 22 in advance to exceed the 25 page limit). In addition, the parties have filed a total of four motions to 23 strike or exclude evidence from each other’s experts, totaling 84 pages. All nine of these motions 24 are scheduled to be heard on August 29, 2013. 25 In order to avoid excessive briefing and facilitate the crystallization of the issues presented 26 by the parties in these five cross-motions for summary judgment, the following page limits are 27 adopted: 28 NO. C 11-06638 RS ORDER 1 VSI Motions 2 Summary Judgment of No 3 Summary Judgment on TIBCO’s 5 Page Totals 16 10 9 5 25 15 Opposition Pages Allowed Reply Pages Allowed 21 13 25 15 25 15 71 43 Laches Defense, Dkt. 158 6 Reply Pages Allowed Inequitable Conduct, Dkt. 150 4 Opposition Pages Allowed 7 8 TIBCO Motions 9 Summary Judgment of Invalidity For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 of ’864 Patent for Lack of 11 Written Description and 12 Enablement Regarding Disparate 13 Databases, Dkt. 155 14 Summary Judgment of Invalidity 15 of ’864 Patent Due to 16 Obviousness, Dkt. 160 17 Summary Judgment of 18 Noninfringement of Patent ’864 19 Page Totals 20 21 The parties are encouraged to file responsive briefs of lesser length than permitted above. The 22 parties’ oppositions to the motions to exclude or strike expert evidence are limited to fifteen pages 23 each. Replies on these motions, if any, shall be no longer than eight pages. 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 7/26/13 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 NO. C 11-06638 RS ORDER 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?