Adobe Systems Incorporation v. Wowza Media Systems, Inc.

Filing 261

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' ( 249 , 255 )MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DENYING AS MOOT THE RELATED ( 252 , 258 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2013) Modified on 2/5/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/5/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Plaintiff, v. WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, LLC; and COFFEE CUP PARTNERS, INC., formerly known as WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants. No. C 11-2243 CW ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STRIKE (Docket Nos. 249 AND 255) AND DENYING AS MOOT THE RELATED MOTIONS TO SEAL (Docket Nos. 252 and 258) ________________________________/ On January 31, 2013, Defendants Wowza Media Systems, LLC and 12 Coffee Cup Partners, Inc., formerly known as Wowza Media Systems, 13 Inc. filed two motions to strike portions of the expert reports of 14 Drs. Srinivasan Jagannathan and Peter Alexander, served by 15 Plaintiff Adobe Systems, Inc. on December 18, 2012. Defendants 16 noticed its motions for hearing on March 7, 2013. Defendants 17 contend that Dr. Jagannathan’s report includes information that 18 was not disclosed in Adobe’s interrogatory responses to Defendants 19 and that this information should be excluded pursuant to Federal 20 Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). Defendants contend that the 21 disputed portions of Dr. Alexander’s report raise previously 22 undisclosed infringement allegations omitted from Adobe’s 23 infringement contentions. 24 The Court previously set a briefing and hearing schedule for 25 the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and claim 26 construction and Daubert motions. See Docket Nos. 161, 248. 27 Under that schedule, Adobe is required to file its motions, 28 1 contained in a single brief, by March 1, 2013, and Defendants are 2 required to file their cross-motions and oppositions to Adobe’s 3 motions, contained in a single brief, by April 9, 2013. 4 has set a hearing on those motions for May 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. 5 Defendants’ instant motions are in essence a premature 6 attempt to exclude evidence that they anticipate Adobe will offer 7 in support of its unfiled motions for claim construction and 8 summary judgment. 9 Court and the parties. The Court This piecemeal approach is inefficient for the It would require Adobe to prepare and file United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 its summary judgment, claim construction and Daubert motions prior 11 to the hearing or ruling on the instant motions.1 12 Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) requires that evidentiary or procedural 13 objections to a motion must be contained in the opposition brief. In addition, 14 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motions to strike 15 (Docket Nos. 249 and 255) and DENIES as moot Defendants’ related 16 motions to seal (Docket Nos. 252 and 258). 17 prejudice to Defendants raising these arguments in their 18 cross-motion and opposition to Adobe’s motion for summary 19 judgment, claim construction and to exclude evidence under 20 Daubert. 21 Denial is without IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: 2/4/2013 24 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 25 26 1 27 28 The Court notes that Defendants received the challenged expert reports more than six weeks before filing the instant motions to strike and thus could have filed these motions sooner in order to avoid this overlap, but did not. 2

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?