XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Filing 218

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 217 Joint Stipulation Regarding Case Schedule AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/13/2020. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2020)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 John M. Desmarais (CA SBN 320875) Emily H. Chen (CA SBN 302966) Michael R. Rhodes (CA SBN 319432) DESMARAIS LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 5 10 Tamir Packin (CA SBN 317249) Jordan N. Malz (pro hac vice) Lindsey Miller (pro hac vice) Wen Xue (pro hac vice) Ryan T. Lawson (pro hac vice) DESMARAIS LLP 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Tel: (212) 351-3400 Fax: (212) 351-3401 11 Counsel for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 7 8 9 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 XpertUniverse, Inc., 15 Case No. 03:17-cv-03848-RS Plaintiff, 16 Hon. Richard Seeborg v. 17 JOINT SIPULATION REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE Cisco Systems, Inc., 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE Case No. 03:17-cv-03848-RS 1 Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and plaintiff XpertUniverse, Inc. (“XU”), by and 2 through their respective counsel of record, hereby enter into the following joint stipulation regarding 3 the case schedule in this matter: 4 1. The Court issued a claim construction order on November 25, 2019 (D.I. 183); 5 2. The Court has not issued a schedule for any case events after claim construction; and 6 3. The parties have conferred about a post-claim-construction case schedule. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Accordingly, the parties stipulate, subject to the Court’s approval, to the following case schedule: Event Exchange Terms/Custodians/Time-Frames For E-mail Productions XU Opposition to Cisco’s Motion to Amend Answer Exchange Number of Hits For E-mail Requests Cisco’s Reply for Motion to Amend Answer Hearing on Cisco’s Motion to Amend Answer Parties to Substantially Complete E-mail Productions Close of Fact Discovery Opening Expert Reports (for party with burden of proof) Deadline To Conduct Mediation Rebuttal Expert Reports Close of Expert Discovery Summary Judgment Motions Summary Judgment Oppositions Summary Judgment Replies Hearing on Summary Judgment Proposed Deadline February 28, 2020 March 13, 2020 March 16, 2020 April 3, 2020 April 30, 2020 (or a date thereafter at the Court’s convenience) May 21, 2020 August 14, 2020 September 10, 2020 September 16, 2020 October 27, 2020 November 19, 2020 December 17, 2020 January 28, 2021 February 25, 2021 March 25, 2021 (or a date thereafter at the Court’s convenience) 23 24 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE 1 Case No. 03:17-cv-03848-RS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Dated: February 13, 2020 By: /s/ Tamir Packin Tamir Packin By: /s/ Alexander D. Walden Alexander D. Walden John M. Desmarais (CA SBN 320875) Michael R. Rhodes (CA SBN 319432) Emily H. Chen (CA SBN 302966) DESMARAIS LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 K. Lee Marshall (CA SBN 277092) Alexandra C. Whitworth (CA SBN 303046) BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4078 Telephone: (415) 675-3444 Facsimile: (415) 675-3434 klmarshall@bclplaw.com alex.whitworth@bclplaw.com Tamir Packin (CA SBN 317249) Jordan N. Malz (pro hac vice) Lindsey Miller (pro hac vice) Wen Xue (pro hac vice) Ryan T. Lawson (pro hac vice) DESMARAIS LLP 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Tel: (212) 351-3400 Fax: (212) 351-3401 J. Bennett Clark (pro hac vice) Daniel A. Crowe (pro hac vice) BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 ben.clark@bclplaw.com dacrowe@bclplaw.com Counsel for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. 18 Joseph J. Richetti (pro hac vice) Alexander D. Walden (pro hac vice) BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 Telephone: (212) 541-2000 Facsimile: (212) 541-4630 joe.richetti@bclplaw.com alexander.walden@bclplaw.com 19 Counsel for Plaintiff XpertUniverse, Inc. 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE 2 Case No. 03:17-cv-03848-RS 1 2 ATTESTATION Pursuant to L.R. 5-1, I, Michael R. Rhodes, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of the 3 document has been obtained from each of the other Signatories corresponding to any signatures 4 indicated by a conformed signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. 5 Dated: February 13, 2020 By: /s/ Michael R. Rhodes Michael R. Rhodes (CA SBN 319432) Attorney for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE 2 Case No. 03:17-cv-03848-RS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ORDER Having considered the parties’ joint stipulation regarding a case schedule, the following case schedule shall apply: Event Exchange Terms/Custodians/Time-Frames For E-mail Productions XU Opposition to Cisco’s Motion to Amend Answer Exchange Number of Hits For E-mail Requests Cisco’s Reply for Motion to Amend Answer Hearing on Cisco’s Motion to Amend Answer Parties to Substantially Complete E-mail Productions Close of Fact Discovery Opening Expert Reports (for party with burden of proof) Deadline To Conduct Mediation Rebuttal Expert Reports Close of Expert Discovery Summary Judgment Motions Summary Judgment Oppositions Summary Judgment Replies Hearing on Summary Judgment Deadline February 28, 2020 March 13, 2020 March 16, 2020 April 3, 2020 , 2020 May 21, 2020 August 14, 2020 September 10, 2020 September 16, 2020 October 27, 2020 November 19, 2020 December 17, 2020 January 28, 2021 February 25, 2021 March 25, 2021 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 DATED: Honorable Richard G. Seeborg United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 03:17-cv-03848-RS

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?