Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STORUS CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AROA MARKETING, INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-2454 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

REQUESTS TO STRIKE AND FOR NEW

SCHEDULE

On February 19, 2008, plaintiff filed a purported “Joint Final Pretrial Statement,”

which, in fact, is a unilateral document signed only by plaintiff; that same date, plaintiff also

filed a set of plaintiff’s proposed instructions. On February 20, 2008, defendants filed a

document titled “Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Failure to Abide by Court’s

Pre-Trial Instructions; Request to Strike Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial Order [sic] and Jury

Instructions; Request for New Schedule for Joint Pre-Trial Statement and Jury

Instructions,” by which defendants seek an order striking the above-referenced unilateral

filings by plaintiff and to continue the Pretrial Conference and the trial for sixty days. On

February 21, 2008, plaintiff filed a response thereto; on February 22, 2008, defendants filed

a reply.

Needless to say, the parties’ failure to follow the Court’s Pretrial Preparation Order,

specifically, the failure to file an actual “Joint” Pretrial Statement and a set of proposed joint

Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 253 Filed 02/22/08 Page 1 of 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

2

instructions, makes the Court’s preparation for the February 26, 2008 Pretrial Conference

unnecessarily difficult. Putting aside the issue of which party is more to blame for the

parties’ failure to comply with Court’s Pretrial Preparation Order, the Court finds insufficient

cause exists to strike plaintiff’s unilateral filings and to continue the Pretrial Conference and

trial for sixty days. Accordingly, defendants’ requests to strike plaintiff’s filings and to

continue the matter are hereby DENIED.

At the Pretrial Conference, the Court will reset the deadline for the parties to file a

set of joint instructions, will set a deadline for the filing of any other documents the Court

may need to prepare for the trial, and will consider whether sanctions should be imposed

for the parties’ failure to comply with the Court’s Pretrial Preparation Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 253 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 2