Powertech Technology Inc v. Tessera, Inc.

Filing 301

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PTIS 300 MOTION TO SET A DEADLINE FOR DISCLOSURE OF REBUTTAL EXPERTS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

5
6
7

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING
PTI’S MOTION TO
SET A DEADLINE FOR
DISCLOSURE OF
REBUTTAL EXPERTS
(Docket No. 300)

v.
TESSERA, INC.,

8
9

No. C 11-6121 CW

Defendant.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff Powertech Technology, Inc. (PTI) has filed an

11

administrative motion seeking an order permitting the parties to

12

disclose the identities of their rebuttal

13

In the Court’s initial case management order in this case, it

14

set a deadline for the parties to disclose the identities and

15

reports of expert witnesses and a separate deadline for the

16

parties to disclose the identities and reports of rebuttal

17

witnesses.

18

extend the case management deadlines several times.

19

recent stipulation, which was granted by the Court on March 21,

20

2013, the parties set the following deadlines: May 12, 2013 to

21

disclose the identities of their experts; June 17, 2013 to

22

disclose opening expert reports; and August 9, 2013 to disclose

23

rebuttal expert reports.

24

Docket No. 30.

Thereafter, the parties stipulated to
In their most

Docket Nos. 253, 258.

The parties did not include in their stipulation a deadline

25

for the disclosure of the identities of rebuttal expert witnesses,

26

to take place after their experts’ opening reports were exchanged.

27

PTI maintains that this was an inadvertent oversight on its part

28

and that it “never intended to give up, or gave up, any right to

1

designate rebuttal experts after learning the substance of

2

Tessera’s opening reports.”

Docket No. 300, 2.

3

PTI states that it believed that rebuttal experts were

4

supposed to be disclosed on August 9, 2013 at the same time that

5

their reports were due.

6

this omission from the case management schedule existed in late

7

July 2013, it promptly disclosed the identity of a rebuttal

8

expert, Professor Andrew Lin, to Tessera.

9

Tessera took the position that rebuttal experts had to be

It represents that, after it realized

PTI asserts that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

disclosed on May 12, 2013, simultaneously with the disclosure of

11

the other experts and prior to the exchange of opening expert

12

reports.

13

PTI now asks the Court for an order setting the deadline for

14

disclosing rebuttal experts to August 9, 2013, to allow PTI to

15

submit a report from rebuttal expert Andrew Lin on August 9,

16

2013.1

17

to Civil Local Rule 6-3(b), Tessera’s opposition, if any, was due

18

by August 6, 2013.

19

for good cause shown, PTI’s motion is GRANTED (Docket No. 300).

20

PTI filed the instant motion on August 2, 2013.

No opposition has been received.

Pursuant

Accordingly,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: 8/12/2013

23

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
1

27
28

PTI states that it will serve Tessera with the rebuttal
report of Andrew Lin on August 9, 2013, pending the decision of
the Court on the instant motion.
2