Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-328/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

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03561 WHA

ORDER RE GOOGLE’S

SEVENTH MOTION

IN LIMINE

On February 8, an order set forth a procedure limiting the parties to six motions in

limine to be heard before opening statements (without prejudice to more as the trial progresses)

and set a page limit for those motions as follows (Dkt. No. 1488):

For hearing and determination prior to the opening statements,

each party shall file no more than six motions in limine, each no

more than ten pages and in total no more than fifty pages. The

opposing party may have the same number of total pages in

opposition. . . . Any motions to strike expert reports or Daubert

motions must be brought as motions in limine subject to the above

limitations, except in extraordinary circumstances and with

advance permission.

On February 16, a further order provided “[w]ith regard to the timing of motions in limine,

please use the thirty-five day schedule” and permitted each side to submit one motion of the six

in excess of the ten-page limit (Dkt. No. 1506).

On February 18, an order approved a stipulation modifying several deadlines relating to

expert reports including extending the deadline motions related to the Rule 706 expert by one

week (Dkt. No. 1509).

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1591 Filed 03/31/16 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

The Court is perplexed as to how Google’s attorneys could have possibly thought the

extension of the deadline for motions related to the Rule 706 expert authorized a seventh motion

in limine. The limitations regarding motions in limine plainly included motions regarding the

Rule 706 expert. Moreover, what did Google think the page limit was for any seventh motion?

Google has placed us all in an unreasonable position, and in the Court’s judgment the

fairest solution is to remove Google’s third and fifth motions in limine from the pretrial

conference calendar without prejudice to consideration after the opening statements. This still

leaves Google with the benefit of six pages in excess of the fifty-page limit and with two

motions in excess of ten pages, but nothing can now be done about that in equity.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1591 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 2