Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Rearden LLC et al

Filing 57

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Case Management Statement due by 12/15/2015 at 5:00 PM.. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 14, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SHENZHENSHI HAITIECHENG SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., 7 8 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-00797-JST CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 9 v. 10 REARDEN LLC, et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 The Court has reviewed the parties' Joint Case Management Statement, ECF No. 56, which 14 violates the Court's Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California – Contents 15 of Joint Case Management Statement. That order requires the parties to provide, inter alia, 16 "proposed dates for designation of experts, discovery cutoff, hearing of dispositive motions, 17 pretrial conference and trial." See also Civil L.R. 16-9(a). Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED, not later than December 15, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., to 18 19 20 21 22 file either a jointly proposed supplemental Joint Case Management Statement or competing individual supplemental Case Management Statements, setting forth a complete proposed schedule. The proposed schedule must include, at a minimum, the following: a deadline to amend the pleadings (if amendments there will be); a fact discovery cut-off; an expert disclosure deadline; an expert rebuttal deadline; an expert discovery cut-off; a dispositive motion filing date 23 that is at least three-and-a-half months before trial; a pretrial conference date that is 24 days before 24 25 the proposed trial date; and a trial date, which will be a Monday (unless the day before the trial date is Monday court holiday).1 26 27 28 1 The parties are free to continue to argue, as they do in the Joint Case Management Statement, that some of these deadlines have already passed, but it does not appear that any deadlines were previously set. 1 If the parties make competing proposals, they should bear in mind that the Court endeavors 2 to decide administrative matters, such as a case schedule, by using baseball arbitration. See Sage 3 Electrochromics, Inc. v. View, Inc., No. 12-CV-6441-JST, 2014 WL 1379282, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 4 Apr. 8, 2014). The parties should tailor their proposals accordingly. 5 The Court will not set a trial in this case for April 2016, as one party currently proposes. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 Dated: December 14, 2015 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 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 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?