PersonalWeb Technologies LLC et al v. International Business Machines Corporation

Filing 355

ORDER DENYING 353 IBM'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF JULY 28, 2017, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO RE-SET SECHEDULES, AND FOR CONTINUED TRIAL DATE. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/31/2017. (patentlcsjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Case No. 16-cv-01266-EJD ORDER DENYING IBM'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF JULY 28, 2017, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO RESET SECHEDULES, AND FOR CONTINUED TRIAL DATE Re: Dkt. No. 353 Defendant. 13 14 Before the Court is Defendant International Business Machines Corp.’s (“IBM”) motion to 15 vacate the Court’s July 28, 2017 order granting Plaintiffs Personal Web Technologies et al.’s 16 (“PersonalWeb”) motion for leave to supplement the expert report of Dr. Akemann (Dkt. No. 352) 17 (“Order”), or, in the alternative, to re-set schedules, and to set a continued trial date. Dkt. No. 353. 18 Having carefully reviewed IBM’s motion, the Court finds that neither vacating its Order 19 nor resetting schedules is warranted. The Court’s Order is not a reconsideration of its ruling on 20 the reliability of Dr. Akemann’s opinions as currently disclosed, but a narrow accommodation— 21 utilized by other courts in this District and others—which the Court granted in its discretion while 22 exercising its role as gatekeeper. United States v. Redlightning, 624 F.3d 1090, 1111 (9th Cir. 23 2010) (“The trial judge must perform a gatekeeping function to ensure that the expert’s proffered 24 testimony.”); cf. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1176, 143 L. 25 Ed. 2d 238 (1999) (“[T]he trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular 26 case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable.”). IBM’s 27 reasons for extending the Order’s schedule or delaying trial are unavailing, as Dr. Kearl is not 28 1 Case No.: 16-cv-01266-EJD ORDER DENYING IBM'S MOTION TO VACATE 1 required to supplement his report and the Court’s Order explicitly grants Dr. Kearl permission to 2 testify beyond the scope of his report for the purposes of responding to Dr. Akemann’s 3 supplemental report. Dkt. No. 352 at 2. Further, to the extent IBM believes it is impossible for 4 Dr. Akemann to acceptably supplement his report, the Order provides that IBM may renew its 5 motion to exclude. Id. Such measures adequately account for any potential inconveniences to 6 IBM and anything further would be, in IBM’s own words, “luxury.” Dkt. No. 353 at 6. IBM’s 7 motion is therefore DENIED. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 31, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?