Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01296/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01296-6/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

Regal Electronics Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Pulse Engineering, Inc. et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. C 03-01296 JW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF PRETRIAL

DEADLINES

On March 18, 2005, this Court approved the parties' stipulated Scheduling Order deadlines.

(Order Approving Parties' 2nd Stipulation Amending Scheduling Order Deadlines, hereinafter

"Existing Scheduling Order," Docket Item No. 173.) Regal Electronics, Inc. ("Plaintiff") has moved

for modification of the Existing Scheduling Order. (Docket Item No. 213.) Under FED. R. CIV. P.

16(b), a scheduling order shall not be modified except upon showing of good cause and with leave. 

Subsequent to the approval of the Existing Scheduling Order, this Court entered Judgment in favor of

Pulse Engineering, Inc. ("Defendant") on May 3, 2005. (Docket Item No. 193.) Seven weeks later,

this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment Regarding the Grant of Defendant's

Counterclaim. (Docket Item No. 212.) As a result of the time that elapsed between the Judgment

terminating the case and this Court's Order restoring the case to the active calendar, modifications to

the Existing Scheduling Order are supported by good cause. Based upon arguments advanced by

counsel in their papers, the parties are ordered to comply with the following schedule:

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 237 Filed 08/17/05 Page 1 of 5
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

A. Standing Order to Lodge Printed Copy of "ECF" Papers

1. In all cases, including cases covered by the Electronic Case Filing System of the Court

"ECF," when filing papers in connection with any motion for determination by the Judge or

Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statements and Proposed Orders, the parties shall,

in addition to filing papers electronically, lodge with Chambers a printed copy of the papers by the

close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. See Standing Order

Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases. These printed copies shall be submitted to the Clerk's

Office, in an envelope clearly marked "Chambers Copy -- Lodged for the Chambers of Judge Ware"

and shall state the case name and case number. Parties shall not "file" a paper copy of any document

with the Clerk's Office that has already been e-filed.

B. Compliance with Discovery Plan and Reference to Magistrate Judge

2. The parties are ordered to comply with the discovery plan set forth in the Joint Case

Management Statement. Any disputes with respect to the implementation of the discovery plan and

all disclosure or discovery disputes are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. In addition, any

disputes pertaining to service or joinder of parties or claims are referred to the assigned Magistrate

Judge.

C. Document Management During Pretrial Discovery and Electronic Evidence Presentation

3. This Court has available a digital and video electronic evidence presentation system. 

The parties are ordered to familiarize themselves with the system, and to meet and confer about

whether the case will involve voluminous documentary. If so, as the parties identify documentary

material which is likely to be used as trial exhibits, the parties are ordered to electronically store

these materials in a fashion which will facilitate displaying them electronically during the trial. The

parties are reminded that Civil L.R. 30-2(b) requires sequential numbering of exhibits during

depositions and that numbering must be maintained for those exhibits throughout the litigation. Each

proposed exhibit shall be pre-marked for identification. All exhibits shall be marked with numerals. 

The parties shall meet and confer on a division which will avoid duplication (e.g., Plaintiff: 1-

99,000; Defendant #1: 100,000-299,999; Defendant #2: 300,000-500,000). The Court's standard

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 237 Filed 08/17/05 Page 2 of 5
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 3

order for pretrial preparation also applies. The Court orders as follows:

D. Limitation on Testimony by Expert Witnesses

4. Unless the parties enter into a written stipulation otherwise, upon timely objection, an

expert witness shall be precluded from testifying about any actions or opinions not disclosed prior to

the expert’s deposition. This is to ensure that all factual material upon which expert opinion may be

based and all tests and reports are completed prior to the expert deposition. Unless application is

made prior to the close of expert discovery, each party will be limited to calling only one expert

witness in each discipline involved in the case.

E. Close of Discovery

5. The parties disagree about the date for the close of pre-trial discovery. Due to the nature

of the case, the Court will establish a date for the close of pre-trial discovery. Pursuant to Civil

L.R. 26-2, all discovery, including supplemental disclosure, depositions of expert witnesses, must

be completed by September 30, 2005.

F. Last date for Hearing Dispositive Motions

6. The last day for hearing dispositive motions is November 28, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. Any

motions must be noticed in accordance with the Local Rules of this Court.

G. Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statement and Proposed Order

7. The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to confer with one another and to file and

lodge with Chambers on December 9, 2005, a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference

Statement and Proposed Order, stating their readiness for trial, the amount of time which the Court

should allocate for trial and the calendar period for the trial. Ordinarily, depending on the length of

the trial the Court will set the trial during a calendar period approximately three to four months after

the Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference. In the Statement discussed in this paragraph,

the parties should show any cause why the case should be advanced or delayed beyond this period. 

8. The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to appear on December 19, 2005 at

11:00 a.m. for a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference.

9. With respect to the time allocation for trial, at the Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 237 Filed 08/17/05 Page 3 of 5
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 4

Conference trial counsel will be asked to stipulate to a time allocation to each side for the trial of

the case. Once a stipulated allocation has been entered, the parties must plan their presentations to

conform to the stipulated time allocation.

10. With respect to the calendar period for trial, based on the time allotted to the case, a

calendar period for trial will be set. In the event it becomes necessary to delay the start of trial

because of the Court's calendar, the commencement date will trail from day-to day until the other

matter is concluded or further order of court.

None of the dates set in this order may be changed without an order of the court made after a

motion is duly filed and made pursuant to the local rules of this court.

Dated: August 17, 2005 

03cv1296.sched

 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 237 Filed 08/17/05 Page 4 of 5
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 5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Aimee Kolz akolz@bannerwitcoff.com

Andres N. Madrid Amadrid@steinbergraskin.com

Charles Wilbur Shifley cshifley@bannerwitcoff.com

Daniel T. Shvodian shvodiand&#064;howrey.com

Joshua L. Raskin Jraskin@steinbergraskin.com

Mark K. Dickson mdickson@winston.com

Mark Thomas Banner mbanner@bannerwitcoff.com

Martin C. Fliesler mcf@fdml.com

Martin G. Raskin mraskin@steinbergraskin.com

Stephen Christopher Kyriacou kyriacouc@howrey.com

W. Carlos Leet wcl@olimpia-whelan-lively.com

Dated: August 17, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 237 Filed 08/17/05 Page 5 of 5