Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01673/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01673-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 NAVTEQ correctly points out that Tele Atlas' failure to confer before selecting a

hearing date violates the terms of the Division's standing order. Nonetheless, it was reasonable of

Tele Atlas to assume that November 30 would not cause undue prejudice since NAVTEQ's own

motions for summary judgment are on calendar for that date. In its opposition, Tele Atlas points out

that NAVTEQ did not consult it before picking November 30 for the summary judgment motions in

the first place. The court hopes future disputes of this nature can be resolved informally.

ORDER DENYING NAVTEQ'S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR TELE ATLAS' MOTION IN

LIMINE—C-05-01673 RMW

TSF

E-FILED on 11/29/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TELE ATLAS N.V. and TELE ATLAS

NORTH AMERICA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NAVTEQ CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. C-05-01673 RMW

ORDER DENYING NAVTEQ'S MOTION TO

CONTINUE THE NOTICED HEARING

DATE FOR TELE ATLAS' MOTION IN

LIMINE

[Re Docket No. 123]

Defendant NAVTEQ Corp. ("NAVTEQ") moves to continue the noticed hearing on

plaintiffs Tele Atlas N.V. and Tele Atlas North America's (collectively, "Tele Atlas") motion in

limine. The court deems the motion appropriate for submission on the papers. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

NAVTEQ argues that it will be unduly prejudiced by having to brief and argue Tele Atlas'

motion in limine on the same date as its own motions for summary judgment. NAVTEQ faults Tele

Atlas for not conferring regarding a hearing date prior to noticing the motion, despite the court's

standing order to the contrary.1

 NAVTEQ fails to demonstrate undue prejudice. Over the course of

November, NAVTEQ must file a reply brief and oppose a motion for leave to submit supplemental

expert disclosures. Opposing an additional motion in limine does not create undue prejudice. 

Case 5:05-cv-01673-RS Document 161 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING NAVTEQ'S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR TELE ATLAS' MOTION IN

LIMINE—C-05-01673 RMW

TSF

2

Hearing all of the motions in this case at the same hearing creates efficiencies for the parties and the

court. Furthermore, on November 8, the court moved the hearing to February 8, 2008, so counsel

for NAVTEQ no longer must prepare for argument in addition to briefing.

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the motion to continue Tele Atlas' motion in

limine. Tele Atlas' motion in limine will be heard with the motion for summary judgment on February

8, 2008.

DATED: 11/28/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01673-RS Document 161 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING NAVTEQ'S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR TELE ATLAS' MOTION IN

LIMINE—C-05-01673 RMW

TSF

3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

David Eiseman davideiseman@quinnemanuel.com

William Morehead williammorehead@quinnemanuel.com

Melissa J Baily melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com

Counsel for Defendant:

Andrew Bridges abridges@winston.com

Dan Webb dwebb@winston.com 

George Lombardi glombardi@winston.com

David Koropp dkoropp@winston.com

Kevin Joon Oh koh@winston.com

David S. Bloch dbloch@winston.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered

for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 11/29/07 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01673-RS Document 161 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 3