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)

Download PDF
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

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?