Global Tech Led, LLC v. Hilumz International Corp. et al

Filing 76

ORDER granting 69 Unopposed Motion to Strike; granting 72 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Defendants shall have up to and including August 17, 2016 to file a reply of no more than ten (10) pages; granting 74 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Claim Construction Discovery and Briefing. The deadline for the parties to complete claim construc tion discovery is extended to August 22, 2016. The deadline for the parties to file their claim construction briefs is extended to September 13, 2016. The parties' responses to the claim construction briefs are due September 27, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 8/3/2016. (ANW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GLOBAL TECH LED, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-553-FtM-29CM

HILUMZ INTERNATIONAL
CORP., HILUMZ, LLC and
HILUMZ USA, LLC,
Defendants/Third
Party Plaintiffs
JEFFREY J. NEWMAN, GARY
K. MART, GARY K. MART,
JEFFREY J. NEWMAN, GARY
K. MART and JEFFREY J.
NEWMAN,
Third Party Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Plaintiff's
Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11 (“Motion for Reply,” Doc. 72), the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to
Complete Claim Construction Discovery and Briefing (“Motion for Extension,” Doc.
74) and Unopposed Motion to Strike (Doc. 69). Plaintiff responded in opposition to
Motion for Reply. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted.
Defendants request leave to file a reply to Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 (Doc. 70).

Doc. 72 at 1.

Defendants state that Plaintiff filed numerous exhibits and raised several facts to
which Defendants seek to respond. Id. Defendants also state that they seek to
address the conclusory allegations made by Plaintiff.

Id.

Plaintiff responds

Defendants have failed to show good cause for the reply, and there is no new law for
Defendants to address. Doc. 73 at 3.
“The purpose of a reply brief is to rebut any new law or facts contained in the
opposition’s response to a request for relief before the Court.” Tardif v. People for

Ethical Treatment of Animals, No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL 2729145, at *2
(M.D. Fla. July 13, 2011). “While parties may ask for leave to file a reply, they must
show good cause.” McDonald v. United States, No. 3:13-cv-168-J-37MCR, 2013 WL
3901871, at *1 n.3 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2013). Additionally, “[t]he district court ha[s]
no obligation to consider an argument raised for the first time in the reply brief.”

Tafel v. Lion Antique Investments & Consulting Services, 459 Fed. App’x 847, 847
(11th Cir. 2012).
Upon due consideration, the Court finds that a brief reply would benefit its
review of Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (Doc. 64),
and Defendants have shown good cause for its filing. Defendants shall have up to
and including August 17, 2016 to file a reply of no more than ten (10) pages.
Also before the Court is the parties’ Motion for Extension. The parties seek to
extend the deadlines to complete the claim construction discovery, the claim
construction briefs, and the responses to the claim constructions briefs. Doc. 74 at
2. The parties state that each party expressed an intent to present expert testimony

-2-

and need additional time to complete the claim construction discovery, including the
depositions of the expert witnesses. Id. Presently, the deadlines are as follows:
claim construction discovery – August 1, 2016; parties’ initial claim construction
briefs – August 22, 2016; parties’ responses to claim construction briefs – September
6, 2016. Id. The parties request to extend each of these deadlines by three weeks.
After review of the Case Management and Scheduling Order in Patent Case
(Doc. 56), it does not appear that the requested extension will impact any of the
remaining deadlines. The parties also have shown good cause for the extension.
Accordingly, the parties’ motion is granted.
The parties also have filed an Unopposed Motion to Strike Exhibit “F” from
their Joint Claim Construction Statement (Doc. 68). Doc. 69 at 1. The parties all
have agreed that Exhibit “F” should not have been included with the filing, and there
was a staff error during the uploading process at the time of filing.

Id. at 2.

Because the parties agree, the Court will strike Exhibit “F” (Doc. 68-8) from the
docket.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Response in

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (Doc.
72) is GRANTED. Defendants shall have up to and including August 17, 2016 to file
a reply of no more than ten (10) pages.

-3-

2.

The Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Claim Construction

Discovery and Briefing (Doc. 74) is GRANTED.

The deadline for the parties to

complete claim construction discovery is extended to August 22, 2016. The deadline
for the parties to file their claim construction briefs is extended to September 13,
2016. The parties’ responses to the claim construction briefs are due September 27,
2016.
3.

All other deadlines and directives set forth in the Case Management and

Scheduling Order in Patent Case (Doc. 56) remain unchanged.
4.

The Unopposed Motion to Strike (Doc. 69) is GRANTED. The Clerk is

directed to STRIKE Exhibit “F” of the Joint Claim Construction Statement (Doc. 688).
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 3rd day of August, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-4-