Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. Ruckus Wireless Inc.

Filing 66

ORDER, Motions terminated: 65 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Reschedule Case Management Conference filed by ChriMar Systems Inc, ChriMar Holding Company LLC. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/13/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 4/13/16. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Bruce J. Zabarauskas, SBN. 248601
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Justin S. Cohen (pro hac vice)
Richard L. Wynne, Jr. (pro hac vice)
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10
11

Richard L. Seabolt (SBN 67469)
DUANE MORRIS LLP
One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.354.3317
L. Norwood Jameson (admitted pro hac vice)
Matthew S. Yungwirth (admitted pro hac vice)
S. Neil Anderson (admitted pro hac vice)
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, Suite 2000
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 404.253.6901
Arvind Jairam (admitted pro hac vice)
DUANE MORRIS LLP
505 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.403.3665

12
E-Mail: [e-mail]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

13
14
15

Attorneys for Defendant
Ruckus Wireless, Inc.

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
20
21

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00186-SI
Plaintiffs,

22
23
24
25

vs.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
RESCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
Defendant.

26
27

In accordance with Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Chrimar Systems, Inc. and

28
-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00186-SI

1

Chrimar Holding Company (collectively, “Chrimar”) and Defendant Ruckus Wireless, Inc.

2

(“Ruckus”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

3

On July 1, 2015, Chrimar filed suit against various defendants in the Eastern District of

4

Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012, 8,942,107, 8,902,760, and 9,019,838

5

(collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).

6

Four of the cases have been transferred to the Northern District of California, and are

7

presently before this Court: Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:16-

8

cv-00558-SI (N.D. Cal.); Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-

9

186-SI (N.D. Cal.); Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. NETGEAR, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-624-SI

10

(N.D. Cal.); Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Fortinet, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00897-SI (N.D. Cal.)

11

(collectively, the “N.D. Cal. Chrimar Cases”).

12

On February 8, 2016, the Court set this action for a Case Management Conference

13

(“CMC”) on April 22, 2016. [Dkt. No. 55]. Later, the Court entered stipulations in the other three

14

N.D. Cal. Chrimar cases setting the CMCs for those cases at the same time on April 22nd.

15

Chrimar’s lead counsel has developed a conflict with the April 22, 2016 CMC setting. In

16

particular, in related litigation currently pending in the Eastern District of Texas, Chrimar is

17

subject to an April 25, 2016, deadline for the close of fact discovery. At the time it submitted the

18

previous stipulations to set the CMCs in the four cases for April 22nd, Chrimar believed that the

19

depositions in the Texas case could be scheduled so as to not interfere with the CMCs. Since that

20

time, however, Chrimar has learned that because of witness availability issues, two depositions in

21

the Texas case must proceed on April 22 in Dallas, Texas. Because of those depositions,

22

Chrimar’s lead counsel, Justin Cohen, and associate counsel, Richard Wynne, are unavailable to

23

attend the CMC on that date.

24

While mindful of this Court’s scheduling, rather that requesting leave to proceed with the

25

CMC without the presence of lead counsel, Chrimar contacted the Defendants in each of the N.D.

26

Cal. Chrimar Cases to inquire about rescheduling the CMC. Counsel for the parties in all of the

27

N.D. Cal. Chrimar Cases have conferred and are agreeable to continuing the CMC until a date

28

when Chrimar’s lead counsel is available.
-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00186-SI

1

Having discussed the matter, the parties in all N.D. Cal. Chrimar Cases are available for a

2

CMC on May 13, 2016. Accordingly, if the Court’s schedule permits, counsel for the parties in

3

this action have agreed to reschedule the CMC currently set for April 22, 2016, to May 13, 2016,

4

at 2:30 p.m.

5

Because the Court has not entered a Scheduling Order in any of the four N.D. Cal.

6

Chrimar Cases, the requested time modification will have no effect on the schedule for this or any

7

of the cases.

8

IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND STIPULATED, that the CMC in this case shall be

9

rescheduled to May 13, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. and the related deadlines for filing a joint CMC

10

statement is adjusted to May 6, 2016.

11
Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

14

/s/ Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
Thompson & Knight LLP

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth w/perm. R. Wynne
Matthew S. Yungwirth
Duane Morris LLP

15

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Counsel for Defendant Ruckus Wireless, Inc.

12
13

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00186-SI

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Case No. 3:16-cv-00186-SI

3
4
5
6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100, Los
Angeles, CA 90017. On April 12, 2016 I served documents described as follows:
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Reschedule Case Management Conference

7
8
9
10
11

I served the document listed above on the interested parties below, using the following
means:
[X]

(By Court’s CM/ECF System) Pursuant to Local Rule, I electronically filed
the documents with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which
sent notification of that filing to the persons listed on the CM/ECF service list.

12
13
14

I declare under penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed on April 12, 2016, at Los Angeles, California.

15
16
17

/s/ Bruce J. Zabarauskas
Bruce J. Zabarauskas

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00186-SI

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

4/13
Dated: __________, 2016
THE HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00186-SI