Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986-39/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVA MEASURING INSTRUMENTS LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NANOMETRICS INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-00986 MMC (EDL)

ORDER CONTINUING SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE AND FOR SANCTIONS

The Court scheduled a settlement conference in this case for August 18, 2006, and ordered

the parties to lodge confidential settlement conference statements before August 8, 2006. When the

Court did not receive Plaintiff’s statement, the Court reminded Plaintiff of the deadline. On August

10, 2006, when Plaintiff still had not lodged its statement, the Court issued an Order re Overdue

Papers which warned Plaintiff that it would be sanctioned $100 a day for each day’s delay beginning

from the date the statement was originally due. Plaintiff took no formal steps to address the Order re

Overdue Papers; simply informing the Courtroom Deputy orally of the potential need to continue the

settlement conference is not an appropriate means of securing relief from the Court. Finally, on

August 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed its Request to Continue Settlement Conference and Vacate Order re

Overdue Papers.

For good cause shown, the Court continues the settlement conference until September 14,

2006, and orders the parties to lodge settlement conference statements on or before September 4,

2006. The $100 per day sanction, however, remains appropriate. Plaintiff did not formally request

to be excused from the settlement conference until August 14, 2006 – four days after the Court filed

its Order re Overdue Papers, and many days after Plaintiff became aware that its representative

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 224 Filed 08/15/06 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

would be unable to travel to the settlement conference. Professional courtesy to both Defendants

and 

the Court required a prompter response. Nor does a continuance due to an inability of the client to

attend in person automatically extend the time to lodge the statement; the Court must agree to do so. 

The Court accordingly sanctions Plaintiff in the amount of $700, $100 per day from the time the

statement was due until the day the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to continue the settlement

conference and agreed to continue the date of filing the settlement conference statement. Plaintiff

shall make a check in this amount payable to the Clerk of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 224 Filed 08/15/06 Page 2 of 2