Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02919/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02919-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NORTEK AIR SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DMG CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02919-BLF 

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE

Defendants’ chambers copies of their motions in limine, oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions 

in limine, and corresponding exhibits do not comply with the Court’s standing order regarding 

under seal documents. The Court’s standing order states:

If a filing contains documents that are sealed in whole or in part, the 

chambers copy of the filing must include a complete set of documents in 

unredacted form so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the 

whole brief or declaration. The chambers copy should indicate via 

highlighting which portions of the documents are sealed.

Standing Order Re Civil Case 6, available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/1668/Stand

ing-Order-Re-Civil-Cases-FINAL-April-12-2.pdf.

1

 

Accordingly, if Defendants would like the Court to review their exhibits, they shall 

promptly submit one complete and unredacted set of their motions in limine, oppositions to 

Plaintiff’s motions in limine, and corresponding exhibits. The set should be as follows: motion in 

 

1

For example, Defendants did not submit one complete set of documents of the briefing and 

exhibits but instead submitted different sets containing unredacted and redacted copies, requiring 

chambers to re-assemble the documents. Furthermore, instead of including numbered tabs with 

the exhibit numbers, Defendants included numbered tabs with the ECF docket numbers. The 

Court is unable to consider Defendants’ exhibits because the motions reference exhibits submitted 

with different exhibit numbers. The Court also notes that some exhibits did not print properly, 

such as Exhibit 11 to Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1. 

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 255 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

limine no. 1 along with its corresponding exhibits separated by tabs with exhibit numbers that 

correspond to the exhibit numbers referenced in the motion; motion in limine no. 2 along with its 

corresponding exhibits separated by tabs with exhibit numbers that correspond to the exhibit 

numbers referenced in the motion and so on and so forth. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02919-BLF Document 255 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2