Genetic Technologies Limited v. Natera Inc.

Filing 54

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)

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 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?