Hunter Douglas Inc. v. Great Lake Woods, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/25/16. Motion for Stay of Damages Discovery, and Bifurcation of Discovery, Limiting Discovery to Patent Claim Construction Discovery # 30 is DENIED as moot.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00106-REB-KLM
HUNTER DOUGLAS INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREAT LAKE WOODS, INC., and
WATERS EDGE BLINDS AND WINDOW TREATMENTS, LLC,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Damages
Discovery, and Bifurcation of Discovery, Limiting Discovery to Patent Claim
Construction Discovery [#30] (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed a Response [#36] in opposition
to the Motion, and Defendants filed a Reply [#37]. In the Motion [#30], Defendants seek
an order “limiting discovery to claim construction [and] liability[ ] discovery; and . . . staying
damages[-]related [d]iscovery . . . and other related due dates in this matter pending the
Court’s decision on the merits of Defendants’ pending Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6)
motions (Doc. #10).” Motion [#30] at 1. The present Motion [#30] was fully briefed on
January 11, 2016. On January 20, 2016, the parties jointly requested a brief extension of
certain deadlines due to settlement negotiations. See Joint Motion for Order Modifying
Claim Construction Briefing Deadlines [#38]. The request was granted, but the parties
were unable to resolve the lawsuit. See [#41]. On February 24, 2016, a Recommendation
[#43] on the pending Motion to Dismiss [#10] was issued. Given the Recommendation
[#43] that the Motion to Dismiss be denied [#10],
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#30] is DENIED as moot.1
Dated: February 25, 2016

1

The Court acknowledges that Defendants’ briefs [#30, #37] provide a moving target
regarding the requested stay and bifurcation of discovery. See, e.g., Reply [#37] at 10 (stating that
a stay of damages discovery should remain until claim construction is concluded). Despite
Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, bifurcation of discovery would require amendment of the
Scheduling Order [#13], and Defendants have failed to provide good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 16(b)(4) to amend the Scheduling Order to bifurcate discovery at this late date when discovery
was permitted to commence on May 12, 2015, the date when the Scheduling Order [#13] in this
case was entered.