Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01179/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01179-39/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LASER DESIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC;

NORWOOD OPERATING COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BJ CRYSTAL, INC, a California corporation;

CASHMAN PHOTO ENTERPRISES OF

NEVADA, a Nevada corporation; CRYSTAL

MAGIC, INC., a Florida Corporation; U.C.

LASER, INC., a New Jersey corporation;

VITRO LASER GROUP U.S.A., INC., a

Nevada corporation; JIMAC MARKETING

INC., a Canadian corporation; CONCORD

INDUSTRIES, INC., a Connecticut

corporation; C. STIEFELMAYER GMBH &

Co. KG, a German limited partnership;

CERION GMBH, a German limited liability

company; CRYSTAL CAPTURE INC., a

Texas corporation; CRYSTAL CAPTURE

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Nevada limited

liability company; G.W. PARTNERS

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California

corporation; HIRSCH GIFT INC., a Texas

corporation; VISIONS IN CRYSTAL, INC., a

California corporation; VITRO LASER

GMBH, a German limited liability company,

Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

 /

Lead Case No. C 03-1179 JSW

Consolidated with No. C 03-3905 JSW

ORDER RE MOTION TO STRIKE

AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

SERVE

On November 20, 2006, in connection with its reply brief in support of its motion for

summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the declarations of Eric Van Stryland and

Steven M. Rhodes, which were filed by Defendants in support of their opposition to Plaintiff’s

Case 3:03-cv-01179-JSW Document 461 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks to strike these declarations on the grounds that

they contain expert rebuttal evidence submitted after the deadline for expert rebuttal reports had

expired. Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to strike. Instead,

approximately one month later, on December 18, 2006, Defendants filed a motion for leave to

serve an expert rebuttal report after the deadline. Defendants seek to have their motion heard

on the same day Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and motion to strike are scheduled to

be heard. 

The Court construes Defendants’ motion for leave as an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion

to strike. Plaintiff’s may file a reply brief in support of its motion to strike, and respond to

Defendants’ evidence and argument regarding the expert rebuttal report, by no later than

January 5, 2007. The Court will address the parties’ arguments regarding the expert rebuttal

report at the same time it addresses Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-01179-JSW Document 461 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2