Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. NETGEAR

Filing 65

ORDER, Motions terminated: 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
NETGEAR, 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-00624-SI
Plaintiffs,

22
23
24
25

vs.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
RESCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

NETGEAR, 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-00624-SI

1

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

2

(“NETGEAR”), 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 March 24, 2016, the Court entered STIPULATION AND ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CASE

13

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [Dkt. No. 60], setting the Case Management Conference (“CMC”)

14

for the four transferred cases to April 22, 2016.

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 stipulation setting the CMC for April 22, Chrimar believed that the depositions in the

19

Texas case could be scheduled so as to not interfere with the CMC. Since that time, however,

20

Chrimar has learned that because of witness availability issues, two depositions in the Texas case

21

must proceed on April 22 in Dallas, Texas. Because of those depositions, Chrimar’s lead counsel,

22

Justin Cohen, and associate counsel, Richard Wynne, are unavailable to attend the CMC on that

23

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-00624-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. Further, the parties shall file either a Stipulation to ADR

11

Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference not later than April 22, 2016.

12
Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

15

/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

16

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Counsel for Defendant NETGEAR, Inc.

13
14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00624-SI

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Case No. 3:16-cv-00624-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-00624-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-00624-SI