Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
DOCKET CONTROLORDER - Amended Pleadings due by 4/23/2010. Discovery due by 2/25/2011. Joinder of Parties due by 10/16/2009. Markman Hearing set for 11/10/2010 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham. Motions due by 4/1/2011. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 4/13/2011. Jury Selection set for 5/2/2011 09:00AM before Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham. Pretrial Conference set for 4/21/2011 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham on 9/12/08. (ehs, )
Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. GOOGLE INC., YAHOO! INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., AOL, LLC, AND LYCOS, INC. DOCKET CONTROL ORDER In accordance with the case status conference held herein on the 29th day of July, 2008, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is in effect until further order of this court: May 2, 2011 April 21, 2011 Jury Selection - 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas Pretrial Conference - 9:30 a.m. in Marshall, Texas Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions and Form of the Verdict. Motions in Limine Due The parties are ordered to meet and confer on their respective motions in limine and advise the court of any agreements in this regard by 3:00 p.m. the business day before the pretrial conference. The parties shall limit their motions in limine to those issues which, if improperly introduced into the trial of the case would be so prejudicial that the court could not alleviate the prejudice with appropriate instruction(s). April 1, 2011 Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time Reporting of Court Proceedings. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court proceedings is requested for trial, the party or parties making said request shall file a Civil Case No. 2:07-cv-511 (CE) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
April 13, 2011
April 1, 2011
notice with the Court and e-mail the Court Reporter, Susan Simmons, at email@example.com. March 28, 2011 Response to Dispositive Motions (including Daubert motions).1 Responses to dispositive motions filed prior to the dispositive motion deadline, including Daubert Motions, shall be due in accordance with Local Rule CV-7(e). Motions for Summary Judgment shall comply with Local Rule CV56. Deadline for filing Dispositive Motions and any other motions that may require a hearing (including Daubert motions) Mediation to be completed Fact Discovery Deadline Defendant to Identify Trial Witnesses Plaintiff to Identify Trial Witnesses
March 7, 2011
March 7, 2011 February 25, 2011 January 28, 2011 January 21, 2011
90 Days after claim construction ruling Expert Discovery Deadline
60 Days after claim construction ruling Designate Rebuttal Expert Witnesses other than claims construction Expert witness report due Refer to Discovery Order for required information. 30 Days after claim construction ruling Comply with P.R. 3-7
The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which provides in part that "[i]n the event a party fails to oppose a motion in the manner prescribed herein the court will assume that the party has no opposition." Local Rule CV-7(e) provides that a party opposing a motion has 12 days, in addition to any added time permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), in which to serve and file a response and any supporting documents, after which the court will consider the submitted motion for decision.
30 Days after claim construction ruling Party with the burden of proof to designate Expert Witnesses other than claims construction Expert witness report due Refer to Discovery Order for required information.
November 10, 2010
Claim construction hearing 9:00 a.m., Marshall, Texas
October 29, 2010
Comply with P.R. 4-5(d)
October 8, 2010
Comply with P.R. 4-5(c).
September 10, 2010
Comply with P.R. 4-5(b).
August 6, 2010
Comply with P.R. 4-5(a).
July 16, 2010
Discovery deadline claims construction issues
June 25, 2010
Comply with P.R. 4-3.
May 28, 2010
Comply with P.R. 4-2.
May 21, 2010 April 30, 2010 April 23, 2010
Respond to Amended Pleadings Comply with P.R. 4-1. Amend Pleadings (It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings except to the extent the amendment seeks to add a new patent in suit. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after the amended pleadings date set forth herein.)
October 16, 2009 June 19, 2009
Join Additional Parties Privilege Logs to be exchanged by parties (or a letter to the Court stating that there are no disputes as to privilege)
OTHER LIMITATIONS All depositions to be read into evidence as part of the parties' case-in-chief shall be EDITED so as to exclude all unnecessary, repetitious, and irrelevant testimony; ONLY those portions which are relevant to the issues in controversy shall be read into evidence. The Court will refuse to entertain any motion to compel discovery filed after the date of this Order unless the movant advises the Court within the body of the motion that counsel for the parties have first conferred in a good faith attempt to resolve the matter. See Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-7(h). The following excuses will not warrant a continuance nor justify a failure to comply with the discovery deadline: (a) The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending; (b) The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day, unless the other setting was made prior to the date of this order or was made as a special provision for the parties in the other case; The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.
SIGNED this 12th day of September, 2008.
___________________________________ CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?