Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00541/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00541-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZEST IP HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10-cv-0541-GPC-WVG

ORDER:

1) STRIKING MOTIONS

[Dkt. Nos. 443, 447, 458.]

2) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MULTIPLE

BRIEFS IN SUPPORT OF

MOTIONS NOTICED FOR THE

SAME HEARING DATE

[Dkt. Nos. 457, 461.]

vs.

IMPLANT DIRECT MFG. LLC, et

al., 

Defendants.

On August 13, 2014, Defendants Implant Direct Mfg. LLC, Implant Direct LLC,

and Implant Direct Int’l (collectively, “Implant Direct”) filed a motion for leave to file

multiple 25 page briefs to be heard on the same hearing date pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7.1(h). (Dkt. No. 457.) On August 14, 2014, Defendants Implant Direct Sybron

Int’l and Implant Direct Sybron Manufacturing LLC (collectively, “IDSI”) filed a

similar motion seeking leave to file multiple 25 page briefs to be heard on the same

hearing date pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). (Dkt. No. 461.)

Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(h), “[b]riefs or memoranda in support of or in

opposition to all motions noticed for the same motion day must not exceed twenty-five

(25) pages in length for all such motions without leave of the judge who will hear the

- 1 - 10cv0541-GPC-BGS

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 462 Filed 08/14/14 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

motion. Civ. L. R. 7.1(h). Due to the district court’s inherent power to control its

docket, United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), this

Court has discretion to grant or deny requests for leave to file briefs or memoranda in

excess of this limitation. See, e.g., Traylor Bros. Inc. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist.,

No. 08-cv-1019-L(WVG), 2012 WL 1019966 at *2 (Mar. 26, 2012) (Lorenz, J.). 

As of the date of this order, the IDSI Defendants have filed the following

motions noticed for October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.: (1) Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings, (Dkt. No. 443); (2) Motion to Exclude Expert Report, (Dkt. No. 444); (3)

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Dkt. No. 447); (4) Motion for Summary

Judgment, (Dkt. No. 458). IDSI has indicated intent to file “one additional motion on

or before the August 15, 2014 deadline,” (Dkt. No. 461 at 2), although IDSI has not

informed the Court regarding the subject matter of the additional motion. 

In addition, the Implant Direct Defendants have filed one motion to exclude an

expert report, (Dkt. No. 450), currently set for hearing on October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.

Implant Direct has indicated intent to “file at least four motions” on or by August 15,

2014, “related to different topics in the litigation.” (Dkt. No. 457 at 1.) 

The Court findsthat Defendants have not shown good cause to file multiple fullsized briefs in support of multiple motions for judgment on the pleadings or summary

judgment far in excess of the limitations prescribed by Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). IDSI

seeks to file well over a hundred pages of briefing in support of its motions, while

Implant Direct similarly seeks leave to file over a hundred pages of briefing in support

of its motions. Neither will the Court allow Defendants to circumvent the requirements

of Rule 7.1(h) by granting Defendants a separate hearing date for each motion. The

Court has already allowed IDSI to file one motion with a separate hearing date. (See

Dkt. No. 456) (set for hearing on October 3, 2014).

//

//

//

- 2 - 10cv0541-GPC-BGS

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 462 Filed 08/14/14 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

However, the Court recognizes that the issues in this case are multiple and

complex. Exercising the Court’s inherent authority to control its docket, the Court

hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motions to enlarge the

briefing allowed in support of its motions noticed for hearing on October 10, 2014.

(Dkt. Nos. 457, 461.) Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court STRIKES IDSI’s motions for judgment on the pleadings, or in

the alternative for summary judgment, noticed for October 10, 2014 at

1:30 p.m., for failure to comply with Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). (Dkt. Nos.

443, 447, 458.) 

2. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part IDSI’s motion for

enlargement of the briefing in support of its motions. (Dkt. No. 461.) The

Court GRANTS IDSI leave to re-file its dispositive motions and file a

single, omnibus brief in support of all motions for judgment on the

pleadings or motionsfor summary judgment noticed for October 10, 2014

at 1:30 p.m. The single, omnibus brief may not exceed sixty (60) pages

1

in length, and shall be due on or by Monday, August 18, 2014.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

The Court notes that it is exempting from this requirement any motion

1

addressing evidentiary issues, such as the motion to exclude the report and testimony

of Dr. Susan Schwartz McDonald filed by IDSI on July 28, 2014. (Dkt. No. 444.) The

Court further notes that IDSI’s motion for summary judgment set for hearing on

October 3, 2014, is also exempted from this requirement. (Dkt. No. 456.)

- 3 - 10cv0541-GPC-BGS

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 462 Filed 08/14/14 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

4. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Implant Direct’s motion

for enlargement of the briefing in support of its motions. (Dkt. No. 457.)

The Court similarly GRANTS Implant Direct leave to file a single,

omnibus brief in support of all motions for judgment on the pleadings or

motionsfor summary judgment noticed for October 10, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.

The single, omnibus brief may not exceed sixty (60) pages in length, and

shall be due on or by Monday, August 18, 2014. 

2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 14, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

The Court notes that it is exempting from this requirement any motion

2

addressing evidentiary issues, such as the motion to exclude the expert report of Dr.

Robert C. Vogel filed by Implant Direct on July 28, 2014. (Dkt. No. 450.) The Court

further notes that any motion for which Implant Direct has been provided with an

alternate hearing date (a hearing date other than October 10, 2014), is also exempted

from this requirement as well as from the deadline extension.

- 4 - 10cv0541-GPC-BGS

Case 3:10-cv-00541-GPC-WVG Document 462 Filed 08/14/14 Page 4 of 4