Aristocrat Technologies et al v. International Game Technology et al

Filing 587

JOINT ORDER re: letters addressed to the Court. (rslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION *E-Filed 6/30/09*

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES; AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED; and ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, INC.; and IGT, Defendants. _____________________________________\

Case No. 5:06 CV 3717 RMW (RS)

JOINT ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Since March 30, 2009, counsel in this case have filed no less than eighteen different letters addressed to the Court. See Letter of June 17, 2009 (docket entry [561]); Letter of June 17, 2009 (docket entry [558]); Letter of June 16, 2009 (docket entry [556]); Letter of June 15, 2009 (docket entry [551]); Letter of June 10, 2009 (docket entry [537]); Letter of June 9, 2009 (docket entry [534]); Letter of June 9, 2009 (docket entry [532]); Letter of May 22, 2009 (docket entry [508]); Letter of May 22, 2009 (docket entry [507]); Letter of May 19, 2009 (docket entry [501]); Letter of May 14, 2009 (docket entry [500]); Letter of May 12, 2009 (docket entry [494]); Letter of May 5, 2009 (docket entry [491]); Letter of May 1, 2009 (docket entry [488]); Letter of April 30, 2009 (docket entry [487]); Letter of March 30, 2009 (docket entry [473]); Letter of March 30, 2009 (docket entry [472]); Letter of March 30, 2009 (docket entry [470]).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The letters have been submitted for a variety of reasons. They include updates submitted at the Court's request as to what issues are still outstanding, proposed trial and pre-trial dates, requests for hearings, requests to postpone hearings, and oppositions to all of the above. In one instance, the letters separately requested both the presiding judge and the referral judge to rule on the same sanctions motion, which risked wasting judicial resources and created the possibility of inconsistent rulings. The parties are reminded of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7, which provides that "[a] request for a court order must be made by motion. The motion must: . . . state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order; and . . . state the relief sought." Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) (emphasis added). In the future, the parties are cautioned that if they wish the Court to act, they must make a proper motion in compliance with the federal and local civil rules, addressed to one of the judges assigned to this case. Requests submitted in any other format will not be ruled upon. Absent extraordinary circumstances, once such a motion is made, the parties should operate within the constraints of the briefing schedule set forth in Section 7 of the Civil Local Rules. Departures from Section 7 must be specifically authorized by the Court.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/30/09 _____________________________ RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge

2