ChriMar Systems Inc. et al v. Cisco Systems Inc. et al

Filing 344

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, 343 Stipulation to Modify Case Schedule and Briefing Limits. Motion hearing scheduled for May 20, 2016 vacated. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 21, 2016. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRIMAR SYSTEMS INC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-01300-JSW

v.
CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING, IN PART,
STIPULATION TO MODIFY CASE
SCHEDULE AND BRIEFING LIMITS
Re: Docket No. 343

12
13
14
15
16

The Court has received and considered the parties’ stipulation to modify the case schedule
and to enlarge the page limits on the parties’ anticipated motions for summary judgment.
The Court GRANTS the request to depose Dr. Madisetti on March 22, 2016, although the
deadline to complete expert discovery has passed.

17

The Court also GRANTS the request to enlarge the page limits on motions for summary

18

judgment. The parties shall have thirty (30) pages for opening briefs and opposition briefs, and

19

shall have twenty (20) pages for the reply briefs.

20

The Court also is willing to extend the deadlines for filing motions for summary judgment.

21

However, it is not clear from the parties’ stipulation whether Plaintiffs also intend to file a motion

22

for summary judgment. If that is the case, the Court still prefers to resolve any motions for

23

summary judgment through a four brief process, especially if the issues, or claims, on which the

24

parties are going to move overlap. In addition, the Cisco Defendants have moved to amend their

25

Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses to include a claim for inequitable conduct. The hearing

26

on that motion is not scheduled to be heard until April 22, 2016, which is after the parties’

27

proposed deadline to file motions for summary judgment.

28

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the parties to meet and confer further on the

1

ant
ticipated issu and claim that will be addressed in a motion for summa judgmen to
ues
ms
b
d
n
ary
nt

2

det
termine if there are any overlapping issues or cla
o
aims. If so, t parties shall proceed by filing
the
d

3

cro
oss-motions on a four bri schedule, and the par who bear the burden of proof sh
o
ief
,
rty
rs
n
hould file the
e

4

ope
ening brief.

5

If the Plaintiffs do intend to file a motion fo summary judgment, b on issues or claims
P
i
e
or
but
s

6

tha are unrelat to the iss
at
ted
sues raised by Defendant motion, t Court will follow a tr
ts’
the
raditional

7

three brief form
mat.

8
9
10

Finally, the parties should meet and confer on a filing d
,
t
deadline and a hearing d that
d
date
akes sense in light of the pending mo
n
otions.
ma
The par
rties shall su
ubmit a furth stipulatio and propo
her
on
osed order re
egarding the deadlines to
o

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

file motions for summary judgment, an a date for hearing, tha clarifies th
e
r
nd
r
at
hese issues b April 1,
by

12

201 The Cou VACATE the deadl of April 8, 2016 to f motions for summar judgment
16.
urt
ES
line
l
file
ry

13

and it VACAT the May 20, 2016 he
d
TES
earing date.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: March 21, 2016
2

16
17
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2