Angioscore, Inc. v. Trireme Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 310

FILED IN ERROR. SEE ENTRY AT DKT. NO. 309 ORDER DENYING #298 MOTION to Amend Pretrial Case Schedule;granting in part and denying in part; in the Alternative Bifurcate Plaintiff's State Law ClaimsMOTION to Bifurcate Plaintiff's State Law Claims filed by Quattro Vascular PTE Ltd., Eitan Konstantino, Trireme Medical, Inc., QT Vascular Ltd; DENYING AS MOOT #299 MOTION to Shorten Time filed by Quattro Vascular PTE Ltd., Eitan Konstantino, Trireme Medical, Inc., QT Vascular Ltd.; REQUIRING FILING OF JOINT STATUS STATEMENT. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2014) Modified on 9/23/2014 (fs, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/23/2014 (fs, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10

ANGIOSCORE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14

v.
TRIREME MEDICAL, LLC, et al.,

Case No.: 12-CV-3393 YGR
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
PRETRIAL CASE SCHEDULE; DENYING AS
MOOT MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME;
REQUIRING FILING OF JOINT STATUS
STATEMENT

Defendants.

15
16

On September 22, 2014, the Court held a telephonic conference in the above-styled case.

17

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court ruled on defendants' Motion to Amend Pretrial Case

18

Schedule or in the Alternative Bifurcate Plaintiff's State Law Claims. (Dkt. No. 298 ("Motion to

19

Amend").) The Motion to Amend is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Only with respect to

20

non-expert depositions, the fact discovery deadline previously set for October 31, 2014 (see Dkt. No.

21

254 at 2) is extended to Friday, November 21, 2014. Otherwise, the Motion to Amend is denied.

22
23
24
25
26

The motion to have defendants' Motion to Amend heard on shortened time (Dkt. No. 299) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
The parties are hereby ORDERED to file a joint status statement on or before Monday, October
6, 2014. The joint status statement shall:


Identify the percentage of responsive documents produced, and received documents
reviewed, by defendants;



Identify the percentage of responsive documents produced, and received documents
reviewed, by plaintiff;

27
28

1
2
3
4



List all depositions that have been scheduled, identifying the deponent and the
scheduled deposition date;



List all depositions that have not been scheduled and summarizing in no more than one
sentence per person the reason(s) why not; and



Set forth for each side the number of documents reviewed per day from the signature
date of this Order onward.

5

The Court RESERVES as to plaintiff's pending administrative motion to file documents under

6

seal, pending the submission of declarations in support thereof pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

7

(Dkt. No. 306.)

8

This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 298 and 299.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

Dated: September 22, 2014

__________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

2