Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02754-18/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

USE TECHNO CORPORTATION AND

FUTOSHI MATSUYAMA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

KENKO USA, Inc., et.al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-02754 EDL

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME;

ADVANCING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE; EXTENDING THE

REBUTTAL EXPERT WITNESS

DISCLOSURE DEADLINE AND

SETTING HEARING DATE

On October 9, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to shorten time to hear their Motion for

Summary Judgment that Plaintiffs’ False Advertising Claim is Barred by the Doctrine of Unclean

Hands (filed October 2, 2007) and Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to

Provide Expert Reports or to Disclose Any Theory of Computation Of Damages or Monetary

Recovery (filed October 9, 2007). Defendants seek to have these motions heard on October 30,

2007. Because Defendants have failed to show good cause, the motion to shorten time is denied. 

However, the Court believes it would be most efficient to hear both motions for summary judgment

on one day. Accordingly, both motions are scheduled for hearing on November 13, 2007 at 9:00

a.m. 

In their motion to shorten time, Defendants argue that shortened time is appropriate because,

inter alia, the deadline for rebuttal expert witness disclosures is set for November 1, 2007. If, as

Defendants state, Plaintiff did not serve expert reports, rebuttal witnesses may well not be

appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) (stating default deadline for submission of rebuttal

expert reports “if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut the evidence on the same

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 182 Filed 10/11/07 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

subject matter identified by the other party under paragraph (2)(B) [expert witness disclosures].”). 

However, in an abundance of caution, the Court extends the deadline to disclose rebuttal expert

witnesses and to submit rebuttal expert reports to November 21, 2007.

Plaintiffs have failed to file an amended complaint despite having been granted leave to do so

no later than September 24, 2007, and according to Defendants, have failed to serve expert reports

by the court-ordered October 1, 2007 deadline. Accordingly, the Case Management Conference that

was scheduled for October 30, 2007 is advanced to October 23, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall

file a joint Case Management Conference statement no later than October 19, 2007. Plaintiffs shall

be prepared to discuss at the hearing whether they intend to continue to prosecute this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02754-EDL Document 182 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 2