e-ImageData Corp. v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting 44 Motion to Consolidate Cases; granting 51 Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases and for Extension of Current Case Schedule. The parties may discuss an appropriate schedule with Magistrate Judge Crocker at the Preliminary Pretrial Conference to be held in case number 13-cv-721-bbc. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 12/16/2013. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E-IMAGEDATA CORP.,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-686-bbc
v.
KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC.,
NAVIANT, INC. and INDUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E-IMAGEDATA CORP.,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-cv-721-bbc
v.
KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC.,
NAVIANT, INC. and INDUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The parties in these two patent cases have filed a joint motion to consolidate the cases
on the ground that they involve the same parties, the same accused products and similar
patents related to “a scanner that creates digital images of microfilm that the user can view
with a computer.” Dkt. #45, at 2, case no. 12-cv-686-bbc. Although plaintiff E-ImageData
Corp. waited a year after filing case no. 12-cv-686-bbc to file case no. 13-cv-721-bbc, it says

1

that it could not have filed case no. 13-cv-721-bbc earlier because the relevant patent was
not issued until September 2013.
The motions to consolidate are GRANTED, dkt. ##44 and 51 (case no. 12-cv-686bbc) and dkt. #14 (case no. 13-cv-721-bbc) and the schedule in case no. 12-cv-686-bbc is
STRICKEN.

The parties may discuss an appropriate schedule with Magistrate Judge

Stephen Crocker at the preliminary pretrial conference to be held in case no. 13-cv-721-bbc.
I note that the parties did not file the motion to consolidate until after the deadline
for filing dispositive motions in case no. 12-cv-686-bbc passed, suggesting that they assumed
the court would grant their motion and set a new schedule. That was a risky strategy.
Although plaintiff has a valid reason for delaying its motion to consolidate, the parties
should be aware that this court takes seriously the instruction in Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 to try cases
in a manner that is “just, speedy and inexpensive.”

In the absence of extraordinary

circumstances, the parties should not expect to receive any further changes in the schedule
once it is set.
Entered this 16th day of December, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2