Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al v. Fortinet, Inc.

Filing 42

ORDER, Motions terminated: 39 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 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 4/18/16. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2016)

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]

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
John M. Neukom (275887)
Andrew M. Holmes (260475)
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Fortinet, Inc.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
15

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00897-SI
Plaintiffs,

16
17

vs.

18

FORTINET, INC.,

19

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO
RESCHEDULE CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

In accordance with Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Chrimar Systems, Inc. and
Chrimar Holding Company (collectively, “Chrimar”) and Defendant Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”),
by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
On July 1, 2015, Chrimar filed suit against various defendants in the Eastern District of
Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012, 8,942,107, 8,902,760, and 9,019,838
(collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
Four of the cases have been transferred to the Northern District of California, and are

28
-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00897-SI

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

On March 24, 2016, the Court entered STIPULATION AND ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CASE

7

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [Dkt. No. 36], setting the Case Management Conference (“CMC”)

8

for the four transferred cases to April 22, 2016.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

date.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

when Chrimar’s lead counsel is available.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

at 2:30 p.m.

27

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

28

Chrimar Cases, the requested time modification will have no effect on the schedule for this or any
-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE CMC
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00897-SI

1

of the cases.

2

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

3

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

4

statement is adjusted to May 6, 2016. Further, the parties shall file either a Stipulation to ADR

5

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

6
7
8
9
10

Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted,

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

/s/John M. Neukom w/ perm R. Wynne
John M. Neukom
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Counsel for Defendant Fortinet, Inc.

11
12
13
14
15
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-00897-SI

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Case No. 3:16-cv-00897-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-00897-SI

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

4/18
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-00897-SI