Media Digital, Inc. v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER approving 53 Discovery Plan with changes. Length of Trial 10 days. Case Track: Complex. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Summary Judgment Motions due by 1/20/2015. Mediation Follow Up on 5/30/2014.(ko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Media Digital, Inc.
v.
Toshiba America Information
Systems, Inc. et al.

Civil No. 12-cv-00313-JL

O R D E R
The parties’ proposed Discovery Plan (document no. 53) is
approved as submitted, with the following changes:
•

In accord with the defendants’ proposal, any discovery prior
to the claim construction hearing will be limited to claim
construction issues. Discovery on other issues, including
infringement, invalidity, and damages, will commence after
the court issues its claim construction order.

•

There will be only one summary judgment deadline, which will
occur after the close of all discovery (including expert
discovery) and be 120 days prior to the final pretrial
conference. While the parties may, of course, move for
summary judgment on any issue at any time prior to that
deadline, they are advised that any motions for summary
judgment that are directed at discrete issues (e.g.,
“application of [the] claim construction order to accused
products”) and filed well before the close of discovery are
unlikely to receive expeditious treatment.

If any party objects to these modifications, it may request an
in-chambers conference with the court by conferring with adverse
counsel on mutually available dates and contacting the Deputy
Clerk.
The parties should also note that the court considers the
deadlines for the completion of claim construction discovery and
close of fact discovery to be deadlines by which discovery is to

be completed–-not deadlines by which discovery is to be served.
Propounding parties shall ensure that enough time remains in each
discovery period for the recipient to provide its responses by
that deadline.

Where Federal Rule 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2), or

36(a)(3) would call for a response after the applicable deadline,
the recipient need not provide a response.
Summary Judgment.

The parties and counsel are advised that

compliance with Rule 56(e) and Local Rule 7.2(b), regarding
evidentiary support for factual assertions, and specification and
delineation of material issues of disputed fact, will be
required.
Oral argument on dispositive motions.

Counsel and the

parties should anticipate that oral argument will be held on all
dispositive motions.

Any party preferring that such a motion be

decided on the written filings alone should so notify the clerk.
Discovery disputes.

Discovery disputes will be handled by

the undersigned judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge, in the
normal course.

No motion to compel is necessary.

The party or

counsel seeking discovery-related relief should confer with
adverse counsel to choose mutually available dates, and then
contact the Deputy Clerk to schedule a conference call with the
court.

The court will inform counsel and parties what written

materials, if any, should be submitted in advance of the
conference call.
2

Customary motions to compel discovery, while disfavored by
the undersigned judge, are nonetheless permissible.

If counsel

prefer traditional discovery litigation to the conference call
procedure set forth above, any such motion to compel should
expressly request, in the title of the motion, a referral to the
United States Magistrate Judge.
normally be granted.

Such referral requests will

If the Magistrate Judge is recused,

alternate arrangements will be made.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated: June 25, 2013
cc:

Corby R. Vowell, Esq.
David K. Pinsonneault, Esq.
Christine E. Lehman, Esq.
Doris Johnson Hines, Esq.
Haris Z. Bajwa, Esq.
Bryan K. Gould, Esq.
Philip R. Braley, Esq.
Laura L. Carroll, Esq.
Zachary Rush Gates, Esq.
D. James Pak, Esq.
Julie A. Petruzzelli, Esq.
Richard V. Wells, Esq.

3