GSI Technology, Inc. v. United Memories, Inc.

Filing 1116

ORDER RE: PARTIES' STIPULATION TO VACATE HEARING. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on March 11, 2016, re 1115 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2016)

\

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

ORDER RE: PARTIES’ STIPULATION
TO VACATE HEARING
(Re: Docket No. 1115)

10

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

12
13

The day before last, I expressed my concerns about the lack of courtroom opportunities for

14

law firm associates in intellectual property cases like this one.1 Recognizing the court’s own

15

important role in encouraging clients and partners to give up the podium once in a while, I asked

16

that each party give associates the chance to argue just two of six motions set for hearing on

17

Monday.2

18

This morning, the parties and their counsel responded. But rather than confirm their

19

commitment to this exercise, the parties jointly stipulated simply to take all motions off calendar

20

and submit them without any hearing.3 No explanation was given; perhaps associate preparation

21

and travel costs were the issue. In any event, once again, another big intellectual property case

22

will come and go, and the associates who toil on it will largely do so without ever being heard.

23

I appreciate that my order acknowledged the possibility that the parties would decline this

24
1

See Docket No. 1112.

2

See id. at 2; see also Docket Nos. 1062, 1065, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074.

3

See Docket No. 1115.

25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO VACATE HEARING

1

opportunity and simply submit their motions on the papers.4 But I would be remiss if I did not

2

observe the irony of another missed opportunity to invest in our profession’s future when two of

3

the motions originally noticed for hearing seek massive fees and costs.5 To be clear, GSI asks for

4

$6,810,686.69 in attorney’s fees, $1,828,553.07 in non-taxable costs6 and $337,300.86 in taxable

5

costs,7 while UMI asks for $6,694,562 in attorney’s fees, $648,166 in expenses8 and $302,579.70

6

in taxable costs.9 That a few more dollars could not be spent is disappointing to me. My

7

disappointment, however, is unlikely to compare to the disappointment of the associates, who

8

were deprived yet again of an opportunity to argue in court.

9

SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: March 11, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
4

See Docket No. 1112 at 2.

22

5

See Docket Nos. 1065, 1074.

23

6

See Docket No. 1064-4 at 1.

24

7

See Docket No. 1066 at 1.

25

8

See Docket No. 1074-1 at 25.

26

9

21

27
28

See Docket No. 1086 at 1. Each party specifies that these fees and costs are not the final figures.
See Docket No. 1064-1 at 1 n.2; Docket No. 1074-1 at 25.
2
Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG
ORDER RE: PARTIES’ STIPULATION TO VACATE HEARING