Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06573/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06573-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

1

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HO KEUNG TSE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

APPLE, INC., et al.

 Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. C 06-6573 SBA 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST TO BE EXCUSED FROM

PERSONALLY ATTENDING ENE

SESSION

The ADR Magistrate Judge has considered plaintiff's request to be excused from

attending the ENE session in person on May 18, 2007, as well as defendants' opposition

thereto. Plaintiff's request is untimely and no explanation, credible or otherwise, has been

proffered for this tardiness. The fact that on April 10, 2007, the parties jointly filed a request

to move the date of the ENE to May 18th shows that plaintiff and his counsel have had ample

opportunity either to secure the necessary travel documents or to present a timely request for

the relief now so tardily sought. 

The court hereby gives the plaintiff and his counsel a choice: either show up at the

scheduled ENE on May 18th or appear in person at an ENE session that will occur within

the next two months on a date to be fixed by the evaluator after consultation with the parties.

 Plaintiff (through counsel) must notify defense counsel and the evaluator which option he

is choosing by May 16, 2007.

Case 4:06-cv-06573-SBA Document 71 Filed 05/15/07 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

If the ENE is rescheduled, and if that rescheduling causes defendants to incur

unrecoupable expenses, defendants may elect to submit to the undersigned (simultaneously

copying plaintiff's counsel) a detailed declaration that supports the expenses claimed and

explains how they were caused by the rescheduling. If defendants submit such a declaration,

plaintiff must file a response no later than seven court days later. 

On a separate score, the court hereby ADMONISHES DEFENSE COUNSEL for

submitting to the undersigned sixty-eight pages of material by FAX. Defense counsel had

permission to submit a facsimile of a few pages. The court is concerned that defense counsel

may be simply running up the bill it will charge its client (and the amount it will seek to

recoup from plaintiff) – because the pages and pages of attachments included in the FAX

were wholly unnecessary in this setting and at this juncture.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2007

 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL 

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: all parties, SBA

WDB, ADR, Stats

Case 4:06-cv-06573-SBA Document 71 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 2