Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00272/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00272-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

H.W.J. DESIGNS FOR AGRIBUSINESS, 

INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RETHCEIF ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00272-AWI-SKO

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF DEADLINES PENDING 

ISSUANCE OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

ORDER

(Doc. 171)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this patent infringement case against Defendants on February 24, 2017. 

(Doc. 1.) The Court entered a scheduling order on November 30, 2018, setting the claim 

construction hearing for April 8, 2019, the non-expert discovery deadline for October 31, 2019, the 

expert discovery deadline for April 5, 2020, the dispositive motions filing deadline for April 17, 

2020, and a trial date of September 15, 2020. (Doc. 99 at 1–2.) 

The Court held a claim construction hearing on April 9, 2019, and May 7, 2019. (See Docs. 

127, 132.) The parties then jointly requested an extension of certain scheduling order deadlines, 

(Doc. 146), which the Court granted. (Doc. 147.) The parties jointly requested to further continue 

the expert disclosures deadline and the non-expert discovery deadline, which the Court again 

granted, extending, in relevant part, the expert disclosures deadline to January 27, 2020. (See Docs. 

163, 164, 167, 168.) 

Case 1:17-cv-00272-AWI-SKO Document 179 Filed 01/09/20 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

2

On December 18, 2019, Defendants filed a “Motion for Extension of Deadlines Pending 

Issuance of Claim Construction Order,” (Doc. 171), which Plaintiffs opposed, (Docs. 176, 177, 

178).1 For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is granted in part. 

II. DISCUSSION

Requests to modify a scheduling order are governed by Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, which provides that a court may modify a scheduling order “only for good 

cause.” Rule 16(b)’s good cause inquiry focuses primarily on the movant’s diligence. Coleman v. 

Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1295 (9th Cir. 2000). A trial court may also consider prejudice 

to any opposing party in ruling on a motion to modify the scheduling order.

Defendants request that the Court extend the January 27, 2020 expert disclosures deadline 

to 60 days after the Court’s claim construction ruling and extend the remaining deadlines 

accordingly. (See Doc. 171 at 2.) Plaintiffs oppose any extension of the existing schedule. (See 

Docs. 177, 178.) 

The Court finds good cause for an extension of the expert disclosures deadline tied to the 

Court’s claim construction ruling. See, e.g., Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Wix Filtration 

Corporation, No. 1:07 CV 1374, 2009 WL 10689387, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 4, 2009). Cf. 

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-04160-NKL, 2014 WL 

2511308, at *4 (W.D. Mo. June 4, 2014). Delaying expert discovery until after the Court construes 

the claims will conserve resources by necessitating expert discovery on only one claim 

construction, as opposed to discovery related to each of the parties’ proposed constructions. The 

requested extension will also prevent the need to reopen expert discovery if the Court construes the 

claims differently than any party proposed, which will prevent the need to later extend the summary 

judgment-related deadlines. See, e.g., Digital-Vending Servs. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix Inc., 

No. 2:09-CV-555, 2010 WL 11450408, at *16 (E.D. Va. June 10, 2010); see also B & H Mfg. Co., 

Inc. v. Sidel S.A.S., No. 2:07-cv-02208-MCE-EFB, 2009 WL 3762407, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 

2009). 

 

1 Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief and certain exhibits under seal, (Docs. 177, 178), pursuant to their 

request to seal, (Doc. 174), and the Court’s order granting the request, (Doc. 175). 

Case 1:17-cv-00272-AWI-SKO Document 179 Filed 01/09/20 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

Thus, the Court finds good cause to modify the scheduling order and that Plaintiffs will not 

be unduly prejudiced by the modification, and that tying the expert disclosures deadline to the 

Court’s claim construction ruling is appropriate in this case. See Federal Judicial Center, Patent 

Case Management Judicial Guide § 2.1.3.2.3.3, at 2-22 (2016) (“Expert reports on infringement, 

invalidity, and damages are central to almost every patent case. Technical experts opine . . . based 

on the meaning of the claim terms as determined by (or anticipated from) the court’s claimconstruction order. For this reason, claim construction should precede expert reports . . . Many 

courts, therefore, schedule expert discovery . . . to begin after claim construction.”). 

The Court will extend the expert disclosures deadline and modify the scheduling order2

pending the issuance of a claim construction ruling, but not to the extent requested by Defendants. 

Instead, the Court will extend the expert disclosures deadline to 30 days after the Court’s claim 

construction ruling, and vacate the remaining deadlines and hearings, to be re-set after entry of the 

Court’s claim construction ruling. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Deadlines Pending Issuance of Claim 

Construction Order, (Doc. 171), is GRANTED IN PART;

2. The scheduling order dates are MODIFIED3as follows:

a. The expert disclosures deadline is extended to 30 days after entry of the 

Court’s claim construction ruling; and

b. The rebuttal expert disclosures deadline, expert discovery deadline, nondispositive motions and dispositive motions filing and hearing deadlines, 

settlement conference date, and pretrial conference and trial dates, are 

vacated, to be later re-set.

3. The parties SHALL file, by no later than seven (7) days after entry of the 

 

2 Nothing in this order shall be construed to stay the proceedings in this case, and the parties may, for 

example, file dispositive or non-dispositive motions deemed appropriate at any time. 

3

If the parties believe that a settlement conference would be productive at any time, they may request a new 

settlement conference date. 

Case 1:17-cv-00272-AWI-SKO Document 179 Filed 01/09/20 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

Court’s claim construction ruling, a joint status report (1) proposing dates for the 

remaining deadlines and hearings, including the settlement conference, pretrial conference 

and trial dates, and (2) advising the Court of the status of the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00272-AWI-SKO Document 179 Filed 01/09/20 Page 4 of 4