Rollsroller Enterprise, Inc. et al v. CWT Worktools AB

Filing 47

ORDER Granting #45 Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines. Motions due by 1/27/2017. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 2/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 5/20/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Case 2:14-cv-01921-JCM-CWH Document 45 Filed 05/19/16 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

Michael J. McCue
Nevada State Bar No. 6055
Jonathan W. Fountain
Nevada State Bar No. 10351
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
Tel: [phone]
E-mail:[e-mail]
E-mail:[e-mail]

6
7
8
9
10
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

11
12

Robert A. Rowan (pro hac vice)
Alan Kagen (pro hac vice)
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 North Glebe Rd.
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ROLLSROLLER ENTERPRISE INC.
and ROLLSROLLER AB

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15

ROLLSROLLER ENTERPRISE, INC. and
ROLLSROLLER AB,

16
Plaintiffs,
17

Case No. 2:14-CV-1921-JCM-(CWH)
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF REMAINING CASE
MANAGEMENT DEADLINES

v.
18

(Second Request)
CWT WORKTOOLS AB,

19
Defendant.
20
21

Pursuant to the Court’s permission given during the parties’ May 3, 2016 settlement

22

conference, and to address the fact that, to date, no claim construction hearing has been scheduled

23

or claim construction order entered, Plaintiffs Rollsroller Enterprise, Inc. and Rollsroller AB

24

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby move the Court, with agreement of opposing counsel, to extend

25

all presently scheduled deadlines in this case until after the Court has issued its claim construction

26

ruling. The table below sets out the current remaining deadlines and the proposed new deadlines.

27

This motion is being filed more than 21 days before the next currently scheduled deadline in this

28

case. See LR IA 6-1, LR 26-4.

7717825_1

Case 2:14-cv-01921-JCM-CWH Document 45 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 5

It is anticipated that the Court’s claim construction ruling will heavily impact the parties’

2

respective litigation and settlement positions. The parties will require time to digest the Court’s

3

claim construction ruling, to consider their positions for the Post-Claim Construction Settlement

4

Conference, and to determine how the claim construction ruling will govern the course of

5

remaining discovery (including anticipated depositions in Sweden and third-party discovery). The

6

current schedule provides that “[f]act discovery shall close forty five (45) days after the entry of

7

the Court’s Claim Construction Order, but no later than June 22, 2016, unless extended by the

8

Court” and that “[e]xpert discovery shall close one hundred-twenty (120) days after the entry of

9

the Court’s Claim Construction Order, but no later than September 8, 2016.” ECF No. 27 at 2. As

10

it now stands, there are currently less than 45 days between now and June 22, 2016, and less than

11
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

1

120 days between now and September 8, 2016; and no claim construction hearing has been

12

scheduled, nor any order entered. Thus, it appears that the current schedule will not provide the

13

parties with sufficient time to digest the claim construction ruling, to consider their options for the

14

Post-Claim Construction Settlement Conference, and to determine how the claim construction

15

ruling will determine the course of the parties’ remaining discovery.

16

The parties’ recognize that the Court prefers dates certain, as opposed to dates tied to the

17

occurrence of certain events, as indicated by the quote below from the Court’s July 30 Order

18

denying, without prejudice, the parties’ initial proposed scheduling order:

19

The Court recognizes that special scheduling review may be appropriate in this
case. The Court is concerned, however, that the proposed discovery plan does not
include dates certain, particularly with respect to the discovery cut-off date, the
deadlines related to the parties’ contentions, the claim construction deadlines
under Local Rules 16.1-13, 16.1-14, and 16.1-15, and the date for the pre-claim
construction settlement conference under Local Rule 16.1-19(a).

20
21
22
23

ECF No. 24 at 1, ll. 14-18.

24

However, each of the deadlines that specifically concerned the Court have already passed

25

except for the completion of discovery, and completion of discovery is directly affected by, and

26

therefore must be tied to, the entry of the Court’s claim construction order, which has not yet

27

occurred.

28

///

7717825_1

2

Case 2:14-cv-01921-JCM-CWH Document 45 Filed 05/19/16 Page 3 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

Accordingly, Plaintiffs propose, with Defendant’s agreement, that the Court adopt the
amended schedule presented in the table below.
Event
Claim construction hearing
and order (LPR 1-17)
Fact Discovery Cut-Off

Current Due Date
Court’s convenience

Proposed Due Date
Court’s convenience

• 45 days after the entry of
the Court’s Claim
Construction Order
• But no later than June 22,
2016, unless extended by the
Court

The later of 90 days after the
entry of the Court’s Claim
Construction Order or
October 14, 2016

Opening expert reports on
issues for which the serving
party has the burden of proof

• 60 days after entry of claim
construction order
• But no later than June 24,
2016

The later of 90 days after the
entry of the Court’s Claim
Construction Order or
October 14, 2016

Rebuttal expert reports on
issues for which the other
party has the burden of proof

• 30 days after service of
opening expert reports
• But no later than July 26,
2016

The later of 30 days after
service of opening expert
reports or November 16, 2016

Interim Status Report (in
compliance with Local Rule
26-3)
Expert Discovery Cut-Off/
Expert Discovery Completed

60 days before the expert
discovery cut-off

The later of 60 days before
the expert discovery cut-off
or October 16, 2016
The later of 30 days after
service of rebuttal expert
reports or December 16, 2016

Dispositive Motions

The later of 40 days after the
• 30 days after the close of
close of expert discovery or
expert discovery
• But no later than September January 27, 2017
26, 2016.

Joint Pretrial Order
(including Disclosures and
Objections pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(3))

• October 25, 2016
• In the event dispositive
motions are filed, the date for
filing the Joint Pretrial Order
shall be suspended until
December 15, 2016, or upon
further Order by the Court
extending the time period in

6
7
8
9
10
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

• 120 days after the entry of
the Court’s Claim
Construction Order
• 30 days after service of
rebuttal expert reports
• But no later than September
8, 2016

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7717825_1

3

• 30 days after the deadline
for filing dispositive motions,
i.e., February 27, 2017
• In the event dispositive
motions are filed, the date for
filing the Joint Pretrial Order
shall be suspended until 80
days after the deadline for

Case 2:14-cv-01921-JCM-CWH Document 45 Filed 05/19/16 Page 4 of 5

1

Event

Current Due Date
which to file the Joint Pretrial
Order

Proposed Due Date
filing dispositive motions, or
upon further Order by the
Court extending the time
period in which to file the
Joint Pretrial Order

Post-Claim Construction
Settlement Conference

Once the Claim Construction
Order is entered, the parties
will file a joint stipulation with
three dates the parties are
available.

Once the Claim Construction
Order is entered, the parties
will file a joint stipulation
with three dates the parties
are available.

Pre-Trial Settlement
Conference

Once the Joint Pretrial Order is
filed, the parties will file a joint
stipulation with three dates the
parties are available.

Once the Joint Pretrial Order
is filed, the parties will file a
joint stipulation with three
dates the parties are available.

Motions in Limine

30 days prior to trial

30 days prior to trial

(The parties will address in the
Pretrial Order whether there
should be a limitation on the
number of motions in limine
filed by each party.)

(The parties will address in
the Pretrial Order whether
there should be a limitation
on the number of motions in
limine filed by each party.)

Oppositions to Motions in
Limine

14 days after the motions in
limine are filed

14 days after the motions in
limine are filed

Replies in Support of Motions
in Limine
Extension of Scheduled
Deadlines

Subject to Court approval

Subject to Court approval

21 days before the expiration
of the subject deadline except
for good cause shown

21 days before the expiration
of the subject deadline except
for good cause shown

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiffs believe that the proposed new deadlines are necessary to accommodate an

23

appropriate response to the Court’s claim construction ruling. Plaintiffs propose slightly longer

24

periods (1) between the claim construction ruling and the close of fact discovery and (2) between

25

the claim construction ruling and opening expert reports to accommodate and potentially improve

26

the parties’ post-claim construction settlement discussions and to accommodate the parties’

27

completion of discovery, including foreign and third party depositions, should those settlement

28

discussions fail. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request the Court to modify the current case

7717825_1

4

Case 2:14-cv-01921-JCM-CWH Document 45 Filed 05/19/16 Page 5 of 5

1

schedule as identified above. Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel have communicated in

2

these regards and Defendant’s counsel are in agreement that the currently pending deadlines need

3

to be extended as requested.

4

Dated: this 19th day of May, 2016
Respectfully submitted,

5

By: /s/ Robert A. Rowan

6

Robert A. Rowan (pro hac vice)
Alan Kagen (pro hac vice)
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 N. Glebe Road
Arlington, Virginia 22203
Tel: [phone]
E-mail:[e-mail]
E-mail:[e-mail]

7
8
9
10
3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

11

Michael J. McCue
Nevada State Bar No. 6055
Jonathan W. Fountain
Nevada State Bar No. 10351
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5996
Tel: [phone]
E-mail:[e-mail]
E-mail:[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ROLLSROLLER ENTERPRISE INC. and
ROLLSROLLER AB

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED:
21
22
23

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25

May 20, 2016
DATED: ____________________________

26
27
28

7717825_1

5