Cascades Computer Innovation LLC v. RPX Corporation et al

Filing 137

ORDER RENEWING STAY, DENYING DISCOVERY REQUEST, AND SETTING STATUS HEARING. Status Conference set for 9/26/2014 09:01 AM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/7/14. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

CASCADES COMPUTER INNOVATION LLC,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

vs.

Case No.: 12-CV-1143 YGR
ORDER RENEWING STAY, DENYING
DISCOVERY REQUEST, AND SETTING STATUS
HEARING

RPX CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

On March 4, 2014, the Court stayed the above-styled antitrust action in favor of patent

17

litigation now proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois. (Dkt. No. 133.) The Court's Order

18

required the parties to file a joint status statement no later than June 13, 2014. (See id. at 5.) The

19

parties timely complied. (Dkt. No. 134.)

20

In the Joint Status Statement, the parties revisited the propriety of the present stay. Plaintiff,

21

while opposing renewal of the stay, requests that, if the stay is renewed, the Court nevertheless

22

permit plaintiff to take what it describes as "limited" documentary discovery from all the current and

23

former parties to this litigation, as well as the Illinois litigation. The Court has read and fully

24

considered the issues and arguments raised by both sides, including the news article relied upon by

25

plaintiff and plaintiff's discovery proposal. Ultimately, plaintiff merely reiterates the reasons it

26

opposed the stay in the first instance, which the Court has already considered and rejected. (Dkt.

27

No. 133.) Plaintiff raises no new concerns that would undermine the basic premises that prompted a

28

stay in the first instance.

Given the progress of the Illinois action, the pending motions to be argued this month, and

1
2

the potential impact of the Illinois action on this case, the Court finds that another 120-day stay, with

3

the exception noted herein, is warranted. While targeted discovery may be appropriate in the future,

4

plaintiff has not established sufficient reason to permit the discovery requested at this particular

5

juncture. (Dkt. No. 134 at 5.) That said, the Court is sufficiently concerned regarding the motion

6

practice referenced by the defendants, that once the stay is lifted, discovery will not commence

7

immediately. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to have the legal issues regarding the claim of a

8

"joint defense and common interest privilege" resolved during the interim.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

9

1. THE STAY IS RENEWED in the above-styled matter for 120 days from the date of this

10

Order.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2. Plaintiff's request to take discovery notwithstanding the stay is DENIED. However,

12
13

defendants shall file a motion on 35-days' notice setting forth the legal basis for their

14

proffer of a joint defense and common interest privilege with respect to the four

15

categories of documents identified by plaintiff on page 5 of the Joint Statement. Said

16

motion shall be filed within 30 days or the alleged privilege will be deemed waived. The

17

Court hereby refers said motion to Magistrate Judge Ryu. A separate order shall issue

18

once the motion is filed.
3. The Court SETS a status hearing on the Court's 9:01 a.m. Calendar on Friday,

19
20

September 26, 2014, in Courtroom 1 of the United States Courthouse located at 1301

21

Clay Street in Oakland, California. At least five business days before that status hearing,

22

the parties shall submit a single, joint status update statement updating the Court as to the

23

progress of the Illinois litigation. The parties may also succinctly state their positions

24

regarding extending or lifting the stay. The Court shall determine on the basis of the

25

filing whether extension or termination of the stay is warranted, and whether further

26

briefing or a hearing shall be required.

27

///

28

///

2

1

If at any time before the status update hearing any defendant reaches settlement in any of

2

plaintiff's patent actions in the Northern District of Illinois, plaintiff shall electronically file written

3

notice in this case's docket forthwith.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Date: July 7, 2014

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3