THX, Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 374

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 373 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO POSTPONE BRIEFING. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SLOT SPEAKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO POSTPONE BRIEFING
Re: Dkt. No. 373

APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-01161-HSG

12
13

On October 1 and October 2, 2017, Defendant Apple, Inc. filed a motion for summary

14

judgment as well as four Daubert motions to exclude the opinions of four of Plaintiff Slot Speaker

15

Technologies, Inc.’s experts. See Dkt. Nos. 356, 361, 367, 369, 371. Defendant noticed all these

16

motions for hearing on November 9, 2017. Id. The next day, in response, Plaintiff filed an

17

administrative motion to postpone briefing and consideration of Defendant’s Daubert motions

18

until the Court’s consideration of the parties’ motions in limine at the pretrial conference. See

19

Dkt. No. 373.

20

This delay, however, is inconsistent with the Court’s Pretrial and Trial Standing Order,

21

which states that “[t]he parties must frontload all evidentiary and legal disputes to the extent

22

possible.” And insofar as Plaintiff suggests that Daubert motions should be brought as motions in

23

limine, the Court’s standing order explicitly states that “[m]otions in limine cannot be used

24

to . . . raise Daubert challenges unless the Court has specifically granted prior approval.”

25

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED. The Court is not compelled to address pending motions

26

at Plaintiff’s convenience. If Plaintiff needs additional time to adequately respond to Defendant’s

27

motion for summary judgment and Daubert motions, Plaintiff should meet and confer with

28

Defendant and file a stipulated briefing schedule and proposed order for the Court to review. In

1

any such meet and confer discussion, Defendant must be reasonable in agreeing to an appropriate

2

proposed schedule in light of the nature and complexity of the motions.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/4/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
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
2