Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05387/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05387-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

DOCSSV1:410894.1

JOINT REQUEST RE CASE SCHEDULE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CONSOL. CASE NOS. C04-05387 CRB & C05-01660

CRB &

SEAN A. LINCOLN (SBN 136387)

I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (SBN 173985)

THOMAS J. GRAY (SBN 191411)

DANIEL J. WEINBERG (SBN 227159)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP

1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Telephone: 650-614-7400

Facsimile: 650-614-7401

DAVID TAUBER (SBN 78385)

INXIGHT SOFTWARE, INC.

500 Macara Avenue

Sunnyvale, CA 94085

Telephone: 408-738-6200

Facsimile: 408-738-6203

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendants

INXIGHT SOFTWARE, INC and ALPHA LUK

RONALD S. KATZ (SBN 085713)

CHRISTOPHER L. WANGER (SBN 164751)

RYAN S. HILBERT (SBN 210549)

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

1001 Page Mill Road, Building 2

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1006

Telephone: (650) 812-1300

Facsimile: (650) 213-0260

PERRY J. NARANCIC (SBN 206820)

VERITY, INC.

894 Ross Drive

Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Telephone: (408) 541-1500

Attorneys for Plaintiff, VERITY, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

VERITY, INC., a Delaware corporation

Plaintiff,

v.

INXIGHT SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, and ALPHA LUK

Defendants.

Case No. C-04-5387 CRB

JOINT REQUEST RE CASE 

SCHEDULE AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

INXIGHT SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff

v.

VERITY, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. C 05-01660 CRB

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

Case 3:04-cv-05387-SC Document 23 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 6
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

DOCSSV1:410894.1 -2-

JOINT REQUEST RE CASE SCHEDULE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CONSOL. CASE NOS. C04-05387 CRB & C05-01660

CRB

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 27, 2005 the parties appeared before the Court for a Scheduling 

Conference concerning Inxight Software, Inc.’s preliminary injunction motion in Case Number 

C05-01660. At the conference the Court consolidated the parties’ two cases, Case Nos. C05-

01660 CRB and C04 - 05387 CRB and further ordered that the trial for both cases would occur on 

October 11, 2005. Verity requested that the trial date be set for December 5, the trial date 

previously set by the court in the first filed federal Case No. C04 - 05387 CRB, which request 

was denied. Subsequently, the parties conferred in an attempt to agree on a Schedule for both 

cases. The parties, however, were unable to do so, and hereby request that the Court set a 

schedule based on the proposed schedules set forth below to govern the two consolidated cases.

The parties have also provided brief statements concerning their proposed schedules. Verity also 

requests that the Court continue by one week the current trial date and pre-trial conference to 

accommodate a pre-existing trial scheduled in another case being handled by Verity’s lead 

counsel, Ronald Katz. Mr. Katz is set for a two-week trial in the case of Flying J, Inc. v. The 

People of The State California (Kern County Case No, 250116 SPC). Verity’s counsel was 

unaware that the Court intended to set a trial date at the time of the May 27 Scheduling 

Conference concerning Inxight Software, Inc.’s preliminary injunction motion and was further 

unaware of the conflict created by the new trial date.

II. THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES

VERITY’S PROPOSED SCHEDULE

EVENT VERITY’S PROPOSED

SCHEDULE

Fact Discovery Cut Off September 2

Initial Expert Reports September 2

Rebuttal Expert Reports September 23

Last Day to File Joint Pre-Trial Order October 4, 2005 (Per Court’s Guidelines)

Last Day for Hearing on Dispositive 

Motion

October 7, 2005

Pre-Trial Hearing October 11, 2005

Case 3:04-cv-05387-SC Document 23 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 6
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

DOCSSV1:410894.1 -3-

JOINT REQUEST RE CASE SCHEDULE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CONSOL. CASE NOS. C04-05387 CRB & C05-01660

CRB

EVENT VERITY’S PROPOSED

SCHEDULE

Trial Date October 18, 2005

A. Verity’s Statement

Inxight’s strategy throughout this case has been to prevent Verity from doing the 

discovery it needs to prosecute its claims and defend against Inxight’s claims. Previously, this 

strategy entailed the filing of numerous questionable pleadings, including an anti-SLAPP motion 

in Case No. C05-01660 CRB before it was removed. Inxight’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied 

but had the effect under C.C.P. section 425.16(g) of imposing a two-month stay on discovery in 

Case No. C05-01660 CRB. Subsequently, Inxight filed a motion to stay Case No. C04 - 05387

CRB, which motion Inxight then withdrew.

Inxight’s proposed discovery schedule below - which calls for discovery to close in both 

cases in just 50 days - is further evidence of its strategy. Fundamental due process requires that 

discovery not close before September 2. Prior to September 2, Verity, for its part, needs to take 

20 depositions in the two cases, including third-party depositions, and requires a complete 

production of documents from Inxight and Alpha Luk in advance of the depositions. All of this 

must be done during the summer months when many people will be on vacation. To date, Inxight 

has stonewalled Verity on its document production, while Verity, for its part, has produced over 

50,000 pages of documents. Inxight was required to produce on May 24 all documents 

responsive to Verity’s comprehensive Rule 34 request in Case No. C04 - 05387 CRB. To date, 

Inxight has produced exactly 1 document consisting of a single page. Among other basic 

documents, Inxight has not produced the source code to its software that Verity’s expert needs to 

prepare his report. Inxight has further interposed meritless objections to Verity’s production 

requests ensuring that Verity will be forced to file motions to compel in advance of receiving all 

responsive documents further delaying discovery. By last week, Inxight was required to produce 

all documents responsive to a comprehensive document subpoenas served by Verity in Case No. 

C05-01660. To date, Inxight has produced only 418 pages of documents in response to the 

Case 3:04-cv-05387-SC Document 23 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 6
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

DOCSSV1:410894.1 -4-

JOINT REQUEST RE CASE SCHEDULE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CONSOL. CASE NOS. C04-05387 CRB & C05-01660

CRB

subpoenas, for a total of 419 pages in both actions. Again, Inxight has interposed meritless 

objections to Verity’s documents subpoenas ensuring that Verity also will be forced to file 

motions to compel in Case No. C05-01660 further delaying discovery. Neither party has yet 

taken a deposition. For all of these reasons, the Court should not further compress an already 

compressed discovery schedule. 

INXIGHT’S PROPOSED SCHEDULE

EVENT INXIGHT’S PROPOSAL

Close of Fact Discovery July 29, 2005

Deadline to File Dispositive Motions August 5, 2005

Deadline to Exchange Expert Report August 5, 2005

Deadline to Exchange Rebuttal Expert 

Report and Close of Expert Discovery

August 19, 2005

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions September 9, 2005

Deadline to Meet & Confer Re Exhibits September 23, 2005

Deadline to File Pre-Trial Materials Pursuant 

to Court’s Standing Order

September 27, 2005

Pre-Trial Conference October 4, 2005

Trial October 11, 2005

A. Inxight’s Statement

Inxight believes that in order to litigate the two cases in a logical and orderly 

fashion, fact discovery should close first, followed by a short period to complete expert discovery, 

which should be completed contemporaneously with the briefing for dispositive motions. By 

scheduling the case in this manner, the parties will know the universe of relevant facts and 

opinions before summary judgment motions are briefed, thus minimizing the likelihood that 

surreply or supplemental briefs will be needed. Additionally, setting an earlier date for close of 

fact discovery will give the parties time to file and argue any motions to compel and provide the 

time necessary to perform any follow up discovery ordered by the Court. Delaying the close of 

fact discovery until early September and expert discovery until mere weeks before trial will lead 

to the filing of a number of expedited motions as the parties scramble to compel discovery and 

Case 3:04-cv-05387-SC Document 23 Filed 06/13/05 Page 4 of 6
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

DOCSSV1:410894.1 -5-

JOINT REQUEST RE CASE SCHEDULE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CONSOL. CASE NOS. C04-05387 CRB & C05-01660

CRB

supplement summary judgment briefs, all while simultaneously attempting to complete fact and 

expert discovery on the eve of trial. Despite Verity’s concerns, the parties can complete fact 

discovery by the end of July and expert discovery in August. If the parties comply with their 

discovery obligations in good faith, these cases can be litigated in a timely and orderly manner.

Despite Verity’s unfounded claim, Inxight has not tried to prevent or delay 

Verity’s discovery. Rather, Verity did that on its own accord by waiting approximately seven 

months to serve any discovery in Inxight’s case and four months to serve discovery in its own 

case. Inxight has only produced a few documents so far simply because Verity only recently 

started asking for documents. Inxight is actively collecting documents in a good faith effort to 

satisfy its discovery obligations. Verity’s claim that Inxight’s motions delayed its discovery is a 

red-herring and is unsupported by the facts. Inxight filed its anti-SLAPP motion in early 

February and it was ruled on by the Court in late March. Verity had ample time to serve 

discovery in both cases before the motion. Yet it did not. Instead, it waited until weeks after the 

motion was decided to initiate discovery in both cases. Moreover, it was Inxight’s position that 

the anti-SLAPP motion only stayed discovery as to limited portions of Case No. C05-01660. It 

was Verity that claimed that all discovery was stayed. Finally, neither of Inxight’s motions 

prevented Verity from propounding discovery in Case No. C04-05387.

Case 3:04-cv-05387-SC Document 23 Filed 06/13/05 Page 5 of 6
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

DOCSSV1:410894.1 -6-

JOINT REQUEST RE CASE SCHEDULE AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

CONSOL. CASE NOS. C04-05387 CRB & C05-01660

CRB

Dated: June 9, 2005 Respectfully submitted,

I. NEEL CHATTERJEE

SEAN A. LINCOLN

THOMAS GRAY

DANIEL J. WEINBERG

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

/s/

Thomas J. Gray

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendants

INXIGHT SOFTWARE, INC. and ALPHA LUK

Dated: June 9, 2005

RONALD S. KATZ

CHRISTOPHER L. WANGER

RYAN S. HILBERT 

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

/s/

Christopher L. Wanger

Attorneys for Plaintiff

VERITY, INC.

ORDER

The Court has considered the parties’ joint submission and reviewed the proposed 

case schedules and hereby orders that the two consolidated cases, Case Nos. C05-01660 CRB and 

C04 - 05387 CRB, shall be governed by [the schedule proposed by [Inxight] [Verity]] [or 

alternatively] [the following schedule:].

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: June ____, 2005

Honorable Charles R. Beyer

United States District Court

10 U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

APPROVED

A

Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:04-cv-05387-SC Document 23 Filed 06/13/05 Page 6 of 6