Twin Peaks Software Inc. v. IBM Corporation

Filing 41

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 40 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Modify Case Deadlines Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 filed by IBM Corporation. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 21, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2015)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
2
3
4
5
6

Robert W. Stone (CA Bar No. 163513)
[e-mail]
Andrew J. Bramhall (CA Bar No. 253115)
[e-mail]
Brice C. Lynch (CA Bar No. 288567)
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
T: 650.801.5000
F: 650.801.5100

7
Attorneys for IBM CORPORATION

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12 TWIN PEAKS SOFTWARE INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES
PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

15 IBM CORPORATION,
Hon. Jon S. Tigar

16

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

1
2

STIPULATED MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Twin Peaks Software Inc. (“Twin Peaks”) and

3 Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), by and through their respective
4 counsel of record hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter an order allowing the parties to
5 take depositions relating to claim construction of third parties that have been duly noticed by IBM,
6 Twin Peaks’ 30(b)(6) witness on claim construction issues, and the parties’ respective experts after
7 August 14, 2015, the currently scheduled cut-off for claim construction discovery. (Dkt. No. 29.)
8 In support of this request, the parties state as follows:
9

WHEREAS, on January 7, 2015, the Court entered its scheduling order in this case, which

10 set deadlines through the December 8, 2015 claim construction hearing, including a claim
11 construction discovery cut-off on August 14, 2015 (Dkt. No. 29);
12

WHEREAS, pursuant to the scheduling order, IBM timely served third party subpoenas

13 seeking documents and testimony on the prosecuting attorneys of the patent-in-suit and their law
14 firm on July 15, 2015, and a 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Twin Peaks regarding claim
15 construction issues on July 21, 2015;
16

WHEREAS, counsel for Twin Peaks is representing the prosecuting attorneys of the

17 patent-in-suit and their law firm with regard to IBM’s third party subpoenas;
18

WHEREAS, counsel for Twin Peaks and counsel for IBM met and conferred regarding the

19 scheduling of the third party prosecuting attorney depositions and the 30(b)(6) deposition of Twin
20 Peaks regarding claim construction, and counsel for both parties agreed that, due to the schedules
21 of both the witnesses and Twin Peaks’ counsel, these depositions would be held after August 14,
22 2015 but before the September 30, 2015 deadline for Twin Peaks’ opening claim construction
23 brief;
24

WHEREAS, counsel for both parties have further agreed that IBM will not be precluded or

25 restricted from later deposing any witness Twin Peaks offers in response to IBM’s 30(b)(6) notice
26 on claim construction issues on other 30(b)(6) topics or individually;
27
28
-1-

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

1

WHEREAS, both Twin Peaks and IBM also indicated in their Joint Claim Construction

2 and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3 (Dkt. No. 39) that each party would
3 submit expert declarations in support of their claim construction positions;
4

WHEREAS, Twin Peaks and IBM expect to submit expert declarations in support of their

5 claim construction positions with their initial claim construction briefs under the Court’s
6 scheduling order (Dkt. No. 29);
7

WHEREAS, counsel for Twin Peaks and counsel for IBM have met and conferred

8 regarding the scheduling of depositions of the parties’ respective experts, and counsel for both
9 parties have agreed that these depositions should take place after the submission of their respective
10 declarations;
11

WHEREAS, Twin Peaks and IBM have therefore agreed that IBM would take the

12 deposition of Twin Peaks’ claim construction expert after September 30, 2015 but before October
13 21, 2015, and Twin Peaks would take the deposition of IBM’s claim construction expert after
14 October 21, 2015 but before October 30, 2015;
15

WHEREAS, as a result of discussions between the parties regarding the aforementioned

16 matters, Twin Peaks and IBM have agreed to jointly request that the Court allow the five
17 depositions identified above to take place after the August 14, 2015 close of claim construction
18 discovery;
19

WHEREAS, this is the second time the parties have sought to make any modifications to

20 the Court’s scheduling order and, prior to this motion, IBM and Twin Peaks have made only two
21 requests to extend deadlines in this case (Dkt. Nos. 10 and 33);
22

WHEREAS, the parties’ proposed extension for claim construction depositions does not

23 affect the dates of the technology tutorial (Nov. 17, 2015) or the claim construction hearing (Dec.
24 8, 2015), nor does it reduce the time available to the Court to review materials between the
25 conclusion of claim construction briefing (Oct. 30, 2015) and the claim construction hearing. The
26 proposed modifications also do not affect any deadlines for filing or lodging materials with the
27 Court;
28
-2-

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

1

WHEREAS, the parties do not believe the extension sought hereby will prejudice either

2 party or result in undue delay;
3

WHEREAS, counsel for IBM, Andrew J. Bramhall, has submitted a supporting declaration

4 with this stipulation pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2(a);
5

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the forgoing, IBM and Twin Peaks by and

6 through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and request that the Court allow the parties to
7 conduct the following depositions after the close of claim construction discovery on August 14,
8 2015: (1) the depositions of the two attorneys who prosecuted the patent-in-suit and their law firm;
9 (2) the 30(b)(6) deposition of Twin Peaks regarding claim construction issues; (3) the deposition
10 by IBM of any expert who submits a declaration in support of Twin Peaks’ claim construction
11 positions; and (4) the deposition by Twin Peaks of any expert who submits a declaration in
12 support of IBM’s claim construction positions.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

1 IT IS SO STIPULATED.
2

DATED: August 13, 2015

3

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

4
By /s/ Andrew J. Bramhall
Andrew J. Bramhall
Attorney for Defendant International Business
Machines Corporation

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

DATED: August 13, 2015

HAUSFELD LLP

By /s/ Bruce J. Wecker
Bruce J. Wecker
Attorneys for Plaintiff Twin Peaks Software Inc..

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court hereby modifies the Scheduling Order to

3 allow the parties to conduct the following claim construction related depositions after the close of
4 claim construction discovery on August 14, 2015: (1) the depositions of the two attorneys who
5 prosecuted the patent-in-suit and their law firm; (2) the 30(b)(6) deposition of Twin Peaks
6 regarding claim construction issues; (3) the deposition by IBM of any expert who submits a
7 declaration in support of Twin Peaks’ claim construction positions; and (4) the deposition by Twin
8 Peaks of any expert who submits a declaration in support of IBM’s claim construction positions.
9 IBM will not be precluded or restricted from later deposing any witness Twin Peaks offers in
10 response to IBM’s 30(b)(6) notice on claim construction issues on other 30(b)(6) topics, or
11 individually.
12
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

22

ER

R NIA

S . Ti ga r

FO

n
J u d ge J o

H

21

RT

20

NO

19

By
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

LI

18

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

A

17

UNIT
ED

16

August 21
DATED: __________________ 2015

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

15

S

14

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2

FILER’S ATTESTATION

1
2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i) regarding signatures, I, Andrew J. Bramhall, attest that

3 concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I
4 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing
5 is true and correct.
6
7
8 DATED: August 13, 2015
9
10

By /s/ Andrew J. Bramhall
Andrew J. Bramhall
Attorney for Defendant International Business
Machines Corporation

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03933-JST
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO MODIFY CASE DEADLINES PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2