Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01468/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01468-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, ) 

) 2:05-cv-1468-GEB-JFM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

NIKEPAL INTERNATIONAL INC., a )

California corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On December 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed an ex parte

application under Local Rule 78-230(e) and (g) for an order continuing

the hearing on its summary judgment motion presently scheduled for

January 8, 2007, to February 5, 2007. Plaintiff contends this

continuance is necessary since Defendant filed a cross-motion for

summary judgment, to which Plaintiff has only four business days to

respond. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s application, explaining that

changing the hearing date as Plaintiff requests would adversely affect

how this action has been scheduled under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:05-cv-01468-GEB -JFM Document 105 Filed 12/28/06 Page 1 of 4
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 Counsel are directed to confer and to attempt to agree upon 1

these submissions.

2

Tension exists between the last hearing date prescribed in

the Rule 16 scheduling order and the portion of Local Rule 78-230(e)

that contemplates the filing of a cross-motion for summary judgment

along with an opposition. 

In light of the wording of Local Rule 78-230(e), Plaintiff’s

application is granted. Therefore, the hearing on the motion and

cross-motion for summary judgment is reset to February 5, 2007. 

Plaintiff shall file and serve electronically its consolidated reply

brief and opposition to the cross-motion by January 15, 2007. 

Defendant shall file and serve electronically its reply (if any) on

the cross-motion by January 22, 2007.

Granting the application necessitates rescheduling the final

pretrial conference to April 2, 2007, commencing at 3:30 p.m. 

In the parties’ joint pretrial statement (“JPS”), they shall

submit a short, jointly-prepared statement concerning the nature of

this case that can be read to the jury at the commencement of trial. 

Separate statements shall be submitted if agreement is not reached.

In addition, the parties shall attach to the JPS proposed

jury instructions and verdict forms. As to instructions on which 1

there is dispute, the parties shall adhere to the following procedure: 

1) the party offering the disputed instruction(s) shall submit the

instruction(s) as its proposed jury instructions, shall submit

authority in support of the proposed instruction(s) and shall number

the disputed instruction(s) in a manner that shows where each disputed

instruction should be placed in the tendered agreed upon instructions. 

Case 2:05-cv-01468-GEB -JFM Document 105 Filed 12/28/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Finally, the parties shall also include in their JPS any

evidentiary dispute capable of being resolved in limine. Counsel for

the parties shall meet and confer about such evidentiary issues for

the purpose of seeking to resolve disputes. If the meeting fails to

resolve a dispute, the parties are to set forth their respective

positions on the dispute in the JPS in a section entitled “Stipulation

Re: Evidentiary Disagreements.” In the Stipulation, after the movant

states the legal and factual basis for opposing admission of a

clearly-identified, specific item of evidence, the nonmovant shall

state its position. Failure to state a basis for admissibility or

non-admissibility of disputed evidence constitutes a waiver or

abandonment of that basis. If the same argument or a portion thereof

applies to a dispute over other evidence, that argument may be

incorporated by reference where that other disputed evidence is

argued. 

 This procedure is intended to expedite the trial by allowing

the judge to understand the factual context involving disputed

evidence and to make binding pretrial rulings. The parties are

cautioned that failure to utilize this procedure to resolve an

evidentiary issue which is capable of resolution in an in limine 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01468-GEB -JFM Document 105 Filed 12/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Since the judge disfavors side-bar conferences during trial, 2

counsel may be informed of this waiver in front of the jury.

Evidentiary disputes addressed in limine need not be included in trial

briefs as required by Local Rule 16-285(a)(3) (requiring that

"reasonably anticipated disputes concerning admissibility of evidence"

be included in trial briefs). 

4

motion may be deemed a waiver of objection to such evidence, or could

result in a ruling excluding the evidence.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01468-GEB -JFM Document 105 Filed 12/28/06 Page 4 of 4