Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Au Optronics Corp. et al

Filing 522

ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones Terminating Defendants' 512 Motion to Seal; Clerk is directed to unseal 513 Sealed Document; Granting 519 Stipulated Motion to Modify Certain Case Schedule Deadlines; Pretrial Conference set for 8/22/2014 at 09:00 AM before Judge Richard A Jones. (LMK)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
CASE NO. C13-1207RAJ
v.
ORDER
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al.,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Defendants.
The clerk shall TERMINATE Defendants’ motion to seal (Dkt. # 512) and shall
UNSEAL the document that is the subject of that motion (Dkt. # 513). Plaintiff has
indicated that it has no objection to unsealing those documents.
The court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion to modify certain case schedule
deadlines. Dkt. # 519. In particular, the court confirms that it will hold a pretrial
conference on August 22, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. The parties contend that they have
“objections to exhibits and other issues” that they would like to address at that
conference. The court assumes that those objections and issues go beyond those stated in
the parties’ motions in limine. If the parties would like the court to consider the issues,
they must submit a joint statement no later than noon on August 18. If the court intends
to hear argument on any portion of the parties’ motions in limine, it will notify the parties
in advance of the portions of the motions that require argument.

26
27
28

ORDER – 1

1

The parties shall follow the modified deadlines they state in their stipulated

2

motion. The parties need not submit video excerpts of depositions in advance of trial

3

unless the court orders otherwise.

4

Finally, the court notes that the parties have begun to file a relatively steady

5

stream of stipulations reflecting their agreement on the presentation of evidence at trial.

6

The parties have presented all of those stipulations for the court’s signature. The court

7

appreciates the parties’ cooperation, but the court will not sign stipulations that merely

8

reflect the parties’ agreements. The court will hold the parties to their agreements, and to

9

the extent they feel it is necessary, they may file their stipulations for the record. But the

10

court will sign stipulations only if the court orders relief, and will comment on

11

stipulations only if it declines to accept them in whole or in part. The court reminds the

12

parties that their attorneys and staff overwhelmingly outnumber court staff and the

13

undersigned judge, and the court has more than 200 other cases to deal with. The parties’

14

cooperation has been admirable; the court urges them to apply the same cooperative spirit

15

to reducing the burden this case imposes on the limited resources of the court. They

16

should request action from the court only when it is necessary.

17

One of the parties’ stipulations reflects the parties’ agreement to present the

18

testimony of two witnesses who live in Taiwan by videoconference. Dkt. # 511. The

19

court accepts that agreement, except that it notes that it will begin a trial day early or end

20

it late only if absolutely necessary. The court believes that respect for the jurors, who

21

will bear an extraordinary burden in this case, demands that the court not alter the daily

22

schedule for the convenience of the parties.

23

Dated this 8th day of August, 2014.

24

A

25
26

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge

27
28

ORDER – 2