In re Ricoh Company Ltd. Patent Litigation

Filing 780

ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR FEES Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. James Ware. Signed by Judge James Ware on 2/22/12. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 03-02289 JW

In re Ricoh Company Ltd. Patent Litigation

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ORDER VACATING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR
FEES

12
13
/
14

This case is scheduled for a Case Management Conference on February 27, 2012.1 Pursuant

15
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, the parties conferred and
16
duly submitted a Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order. (See Docket Item No.
17
779.) In their Joint Statement, the parties disagree as to whether additional discovery is necessary
18
regarding the issue of attorney fees. (Id. at 13.) Defendant contends that additional discovery
19
should occur prior to the filing of additional motions and that the issue of fees should not be
20
reconsidered until August, 2012. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that all remaining issues can be resolved
21
on the briefs and that additional discovery is unnecessary. (Id.)
22
Upon review, the Court finds that it can set a briefing schedule to resolve the issue on
23
remand without the necessity of an appearance at this time. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the
24
Case Management Conference and orders as follows:
25
26
27
1

28

This case is before the Court on remand from the Federal Circuit solely on the issue of the
proper amount of attorney fees to be awarded. (See Docket Item No. 774.)

1

(1)

The Court finds no reason to require the production of additional documents prior to

2

the filing of briefs on the issue of fees. In particular, the Court finds that the

3

documentation provided with Plaintiff’s opening brief on the issue of fees should be

4

sufficient to allow Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s motion.

5

(2)

Because further production of documents in support of the application for fees is

6

unnecessary, the Court finds no reason to delay consideration of Plaintiff’s fee

7

motion until August. Thus, the Court sets April 23, 2012 at 9 a.m. for a hearing on

8

Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for fees. The parties shall notice and brief this motion

9

in accordance with the Local Rules.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: February 22, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

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

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Brian A. E. Smith [e-mail]
Caroline McIntyre [e-mail]
Cathy Chen [e-mail]
Daniel J. Bergeson [e-mail]
DeAnna Dahlyce Allen [e-mail]
Denise M. De Mory [e-mail]
Edward A. Meilman [e-mail]
Eric Oliver [e-mail]
Erik Keith Moller [e-mail]
Ethan B. Andelman [e-mail]
Gary M. Hoffman [e-mail]
Henry C. Su [e-mail]
Hway-Ling Hsu [e-mail]
Jaclyn C. Fink [e-mail]
Julie M. Holloway [e-mail]
Kenneth W. Brothers [e-mail]
Krista Marie Carter [e-mail]
Matthew Greinert [e-mail]
Matthew E. Hocker [e-mail]
Melinda Mae Morton [e-mail]
Richard Gregory Frenkel [e-mail]
Ron Eleazer Shulman [e-mail]
Teresa M Corbin [e-mail]
Terrence J.P. Kearney [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Dated: February 22, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

16
By:
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy