Gardensensor, Inc v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc

Filing 185

FIFTH ORDER RE: TRIAL PREPARATION. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/22/2014. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12 GARDENSENSOR, INC., a Delaware
13
14

Corporation, formerly known as
PLANTSENSE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,

FIFTH ORDER RE: TRIAL
PREPARATION

Plaintiff,

15
16

Case No. 12-cv-03922 NC

v.
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC., a

17 Delaware Corporation, formerly known as
BLACK & DECKER (U.S.), a Maryland

18 Corporation,
19

Defendant.

20
21
22

In previous pretrial orders rulings, the Court set a time limit of eighteen hours per

23 side for evidence presentation and fifty exhibits per side in this breach of contract action.
24 Dkt. Nos. 144, 156, 163. Black & Decker contends that these limitations violate its right to
25 due process, requesting six more hours of evidence and seventy-five more exhibits. Dkt.
26 No. 173. The requested additional hours are for the examination of witnesses who are
27 already on the list of witnesses proposed by the parties to testify within the current limit of
28 eighteen hours. See Dkt. No. 173-2. Black & Decker’s proposed additional exhibit list
Case No. 12-cv-03922 NC
FIFTH ORDER RE: TRIAL
PREPARATION

s
xhibits. See Dkt. No. 173-3. Gar
e
rdensensor o
opposes Black & Deck
ker’s
1 contains only six ex
1
2 request. Dkt. No. 180.

3

Having reviewed the pro
oposed additional evid
dence and co
onsidered th argumen of
he
nts

cord
ourt
hat
its
he
4 counsel and the rec in this case, the Co finds th the limi set on th evidence
ation time and the num
mber of exhi
ibits for tria are reason
al
nable and fa
acilitate the just,
e
5 presenta
ensive dispo
osition of th action. S Fed. R. Civ. P. 16; Navellier v
he
See
v.
6 speedy, and inexpe
23,
h
ourts have b
broad author to impo
rity
ose
7 Sletten, 262 F.3d 92 941 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Trial co
ble
mits
prevent und delay, w
due
waste of tim or needl present
me,
less
tation
8 reasonab time lim . . . to ‘p
ulative evide
ence.’” (quo
oting Amar v. Conne 102 F.3d 1494, 151 (9th Cir.
rel
ell,
d
13
9 of cumu
gly,
r
xhibits is
10 1997)). According Black & Decker’s request for additional time and ex
0
D.
11 DENIED
1

12
2

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

13
3

Date: Octobe 22, 2014
er

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 12-cv-0392 NC
22
FIFTH ORDER RE: TRIAL
O
PREPAR
RATION

2