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).

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