Zest IP Holdings, LLC et al v. Implant Direct MFG. LLC et al

Filing 462

ORDER: (1) Striking Motions 443 , 447 , 458 ; (2) Granting In Part and Denying In Part 457 , 461 Motions for Leave to File Multiple Briefs in Support of Motions Noticed for the Same Hearing Date. The Court Strikes IDSI's motions for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative for summary judgment for failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). The Court Grants IDSI leave to re-file its dispositive motions and file a single, omnibus brief not to exceed sixty (60) p ages in support of all motions for judgment on the pleadings or motions for summary judgment pages by 8/18/2014. The Court Grants Implant Direct leave to file a single, omnibus brief not to exceed sixty (60) pages in support of all motions for judgment on the pleadings or motions for summary judgment by 8/18/2014. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 8/14/2014. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ZEST IP HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11
12

vs.

[Dkt. Nos. 443, 447, 458.]

14
16
17

ORDER:
1) STRIKING MOTIONS

13
15

CASE NO. 10-cv-0541-GPC-WVG

IMPLANT DIRECT MFG. LLC, et
al.,
Defendants.

2) GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MULTIPLE
BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTIONS NOTICED FOR THE
SAME HEARING DATE
[Dkt. Nos. 457, 461.]

18
19

On August 13, 2014, Defendants Implant Direct Mfg. LLC, Implant Direct LLC,

20 and Implant Direct Int’l (collectively, “Implant Direct”) filed a motion for leave to file
21 multiple 25 page briefs to be heard on the same hearing date pursuant to Civil Local
22 Rule 7.1(h). (Dkt. No. 457.) On August 14, 2014, Defendants Implant Direct Sybron
23 Int’l and Implant Direct Sybron Manufacturing LLC (collectively, “IDSI”) filed a
24 similar motion seeking leave to file multiple 25 page briefs to be heard on the same
25 hearing date pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). (Dkt. No. 461.)
26

Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(h), “[b]riefs or memoranda in support of or in

27 opposition to all motions noticed for the same motion day must not exceed twenty-five
28 (25) pages in length for all such motions without leave of the judge who will hear the
-1-

10cv0541-GPC-BGS

1 motion. Civ. L. R. 7.1(h). Due to the district court’s inherent power to control its
2 docket, United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), this
3 Court has discretion to grant or deny requests for leave to file briefs or memoranda in
4 excess of this limitation. See, e.g., Traylor Bros. Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist.,
5 No. 08-cv-1019-L(WVG), 2012 WL 1019966 at *2 (Mar. 26, 2012) (Lorenz, J.).
6

As of the date of this order, the IDSI Defendants have filed the following

7 motions noticed for October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.: (1) Motion for Judgment on the
8 Pleadings, (Dkt. No. 443); (2) Motion to Exclude Expert Report, (Dkt. No. 444); (3)
9 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Dkt. No. 447); (4) Motion for Summary
10 Judgment, (Dkt. No. 458). IDSI has indicated intent to file “one additional motion on
11 or before the August 15, 2014 deadline,” (Dkt. No. 461 at 2), although IDSI has not
12 informed the Court regarding the subject matter of the additional motion.
13

In addition, the Implant Direct Defendants have filed one motion to exclude an

14 expert report, (Dkt. No. 450), currently set for hearing on October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.
15 Implant Direct has indicated intent to “file at least four motions” on or by August 15,
16 2014, “related to different topics in the litigation.” (Dkt. No. 457 at 1.)
17

The Court finds that Defendants have not shown good cause to file multiple full-

18 sized briefs in support of multiple motions for judgment on the pleadings or summary
19 judgment far in excess of the limitations prescribed by Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). IDSI
20 seeks to file well over a hundred pages of briefing in support of its motions, while
21 Implant Direct similarly seeks leave to file over a hundred pages of briefing in support
22 of its motions. Neither will the Court allow Defendants to circumvent the requirements
23 of Rule 7.1(h) by granting Defendants a separate hearing date for each motion. The
24 Court has already allowed IDSI to file one motion with a separate hearing date. (See
25 Dkt. No. 456) (set for hearing on October 3, 2014).
26 //
27 //
28 //
-2-

10cv0541-GPC-BGS

1

However, the Court recognizes that the issues in this case are multiple and

2 complex. Exercising the Court’s inherent authority to control its docket, the Court
3 hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motions to enlarge the
4 briefing allowed in support of its motions noticed for hearing on October 10, 2014.
5 (Dkt. Nos. 457, 461.) Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
6

1.

The Court STRIKES IDSI’s motions for judgment on the pleadings, or in

7

the alternative for summary judgment, noticed for October 10, 2014 at

8

1:30 p.m., for failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). (Dkt. Nos.

9

443, 447, 458.)

10

2.

The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part IDSI’s motion for

11

enlargement of the briefing in support of its motions. (Dkt. No. 461.) The

12

Court GRANTS IDSI leave to re-file its dispositive motions and file a

13

single, omnibus brief in support of all motions for judgment on the

14

pleadings or motions for summary judgment noticed for October 10, 2014

15

at 1:30 p.m.1 The single, omnibus brief may not exceed sixty (60) pages

16

in length, and shall be due on or by Monday, August 18, 2014.

17 //
18 //
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26
1

The Court notes that it is exempting from this requirement any motion
27 addressing evidentiary issues, such as the motion to exclude the report and testimony
of Dr. Susan Schwartz McDonald filed by IDSI on July 28, 2014. (Dkt. No. 444.) The
28 Court further notes that IDSI’s motion for summary judgment set for hearing on
October 3, 2014, is also exempted from this requirement. (Dkt. No. 456.)
-3-

10cv0541-GPC-BGS

1

4.

The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Implant Direct’s motion

2

for enlargement of the briefing in support of its motions. (Dkt. No. 457.)

3

The Court similarly GRANTS Implant Direct leave to file a single,

4

omnibus brief in support of all motions for judgment on the pleadings or

5

motions for summary judgment noticed for October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.

6

The single, omnibus brief may not exceed sixty (60) pages in length, and

7

shall be due on or by Monday, August 18, 2014.2

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 DATED: August 14, 2014
10
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

The Court notes that it is exempting from this requirement any motion
addressing evidentiary issues, such as the motion to exclude the expert report of Dr.
27 Robert C. Vogel filed by Implant Direct on July 28, 2014. (Dkt. No. 450.) The Court
further notes that any motion for which Implant Direct has been provided with an
28 alternate hearing date (a hearing date other than October 10, 2014), is also exempted
from this requirement as well as from the deadline extension.
-4-

10cv0541-GPC-BGS