Eyetalk365, LLC v. Zmodo Technology Corporation Limited

Filing 56

ORDER denying without prejudice 54 Motion to Compel Compliance With Patent Local Rule 3.4(A). Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 8/18/17. (mga)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-789-FDW-DCK EYETALK365, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ZMODO TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff Eyetalk365, LLC’s Motion To Compel Compliance With Patent Local Rule 3.4(A)” (Document No. 54) filed August 18, 2017. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, and following consultation with Judge Whitney’s chambers, the undersigned will deny the motion. The undersigned notes that pursuant to the “Utility Patent Claim Construction Scheduling Order” the parties are required “to attempt in good faith to resolve discovery disputes without the necessity of court intervention;” and if they fail, they shall “schedule and submit to an informal telephonic conference before the referral magistrate judge.” (Document No. 39, p.5). In this instance, the parties have not contacted the undersigned’s chamber to request a telephone conference. As such, the motion will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff shall again confer with Defendant in attempt to resolve, or at least narrow, the instant dispute. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute, they may contact the undersigned’s law clerk to request a telephone conference. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff Eyetalk365, LLC’s Motion To Compel Compliance With Patent Local Rule 3.4(A) (Document No. 54) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed: August 18, 2017 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?