Genetic Technologies Limited v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.
Filing
121
CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER AND DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/17/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2014)
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
GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES,
CASE MANAGEMENT
SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
Defendant.
____________________________________
17 GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,
18
19
No. C 12-01616 RS
No. C 14-02448 RS
Plaintiff,
v.
20 NATERA, INC.,
21
Defendant.
____________________________________/
22
23
Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties in these two
24
related matters attended a Case Management Conference on July 17, 2014. The court also heard
25
arguments regarding the plaintiff’s motion to consolidate. After considering the Joint Case
26
Management Statement submitted by the parties and consulting with the attorneys of record for
27
the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
28
CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER
1
1.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE.
2
The motion to consolidate is DENIED without prejudice to any renewed motion to
3
consolidate following claim construction. Activity in both cases shall, however, proceed in a
4
coordinated manner through claim construction. Discovery shall be coordinated and applicable
5
in each matter through that period, and a single technology tutorial and claim construction
6
hearing shall be held. Any issues regarding adjustment to the protective order shall be referred
7
to Magistrate Judge Spero.
8
2.
DISCOVERY.
9
Discovery shall be limited as follows: (a) ten (10) non-expert depositions per party; (b)
twenty-five (25) interrogatories per party, including all discrete subparts; (c) a reasonable
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
number of requests for production of documents or for inspection per party; and (d) a reasonable
12
number of requests for admission per party.
13
3.
14
The parties are ordered to submit a joint statement on or before August 1, 2014,
15
FURTHER SCHEDULING.
proposing further dates through claim construction, consistent with the Patent Local Rules.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
DATED: July 17, 2014
_______________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING 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?