Lifescan, Inc. et al v. Shasta Technologies, LLC et al

Filing 58

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 42 Stipulation.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

LIFESCAN, INC. and
JOHNSON & JOHNSON,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
vs.
SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
PHARMATECH SOLUTIONS, INC.,
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS CORP. and
CONDUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-06360
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION RE:
CASE SCHEDULING

The parties have submitted a stipulation and proposed order requesting that the Court set a

18

deadline of January 28, 2013 for Plaintiffs to file responses to Defendants Shasta Technologies,

19

Inc. and Conductive Technologies, Inc.’ evidentiary objections to the Declarations of Ty Lee and

20

Erich Joachimsthaler (ECF Nos. 32-33 (“Objections”)). See ECF No. 42 (“Stipulation”). January

21

28, 2013 is the due date for Plaintiffs’ reply brief in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

22

Injunction. See ECF No. 41.

23

The Objections were originally filed by Defendants Shasta Technologies, Inc., and

24

Conductive Technologies, Inc. as two separate documents to be considered in connection with

25

those Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See ECF No. 27.

26

Defendants Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. and Decision Diagnostics Corp. filed a separate Opposition.

27

See ECF No. 29. After Defendants filed their Oppositions, the Court ordered that all Defendants

28

file a single consolidated Opposition. See ECF No. 41. Based on the parties’ Stipulation, the
1
Case No.: 12-CV-06360
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION RE: CASE SCHEDULING

1

Court surmises that all Defendants now wish that the Objections be considered in connection with

2

Defendants’ recently filed joint Opposition. See ECF No. 49.

3

Local Rule 7-3(b) provides that “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to [a party’s]
motion must be contained within the [Opposition] brief or memorandum.” Defendants’ Objections

5

are not contained in Defendants’ joint Opposition but rather are contained in two separately filed

6

documents, which constitute 15 pages of additional unauthorized briefing. Accordingly, the Court

7

disregards Defendants’ Objections.1 The parties’ Stipulation seeking an order setting a deadline for

8

Plaintiffs’ response to the Objections is therefore DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

Dated: January 23, 2013

11

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

To the extent Defendants’ joint Opposition brief contains evidentiary objections, the Court will
consider these objections.

2
Case No.: 12-CV-06360
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION RE: CASE SCHEDULING