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)

Download PDF
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

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?