Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation et al
Filing
241
ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 233 Motion ; denying 236 Motion for Leave to File. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 14-cv-00876-RS
v.
STRYKER CORPORATION, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
LIMIT, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Defendants.
12
Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. (“KSEA”) requests various forms of miscellaneous
13
relief styled as: (i) a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the August 11, 2016
14
15
16
17
18
Case Management Scheduling Order, which requires KSEA to reduce the number of asserted
claims or, alternatively, (ii) a motion for clarification that KSEA may assert additional claims on a
showing of good cause, and (iii) a motion to limit the number of prior art invalidity theories
asserted by Stryker Corporation and Stryker Communications, Inc. (collectively, “Stryker”).
These are case management issues. They should be briefed and argued at the next case
19
management conference. As styled, KSEA’s motions are improper and lack merit. First, a motion
20
for reconsideration, under Local Rule 7-9, is meant for contesting substantive legal orders, not
21
scheduling orders. Second, the relief sought by KSEA’s motion for clarification is unnecessary.
22
As Stryker notes, the August 11, 2016 order is a scheduling order and is therefore subject to
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. Under that rule, “[a] schedule may be modified only for good
24
cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Thus, the authority for KSEA to
25
seek to modify the order for good cause already exists. Third, the motion to limit prior art
26
references is premature and KSEA provides no justification for resolving this issue outside of the
27
28
1
normal case management context.1 For these reasons, KSEA’s motions are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
4
Dated: November 18, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
The next case management conference is scheduled for March 23, 2017. KSEA argues that these
issues should be resolved before expert reports are due, but expert reports are not due until June
2017. In any event, specific scheduling concerns can be discussed at the case management
conference.
ORDER RE: MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF
CASE NO. 14-cv-00876-RS
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?