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)

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