Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03115/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03115-10/pdf.json

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Sportvision, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SportsMEDIA Technology Corp., 

Defendant.

 /

NO. C 04-03115 JW 

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

On March 27, 2006, the Court conducted a case management conference. Counsel Burt

Magen, Howard Susser, and Merton Thompson appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Sportvision. Counsel

Kerry Hopkins appeared on behalf of Defendant SportsMEDIA. The Court sets the following case

schedule: 

Preliminary Pretrial Conference and Trial Setting

Conference (Paragraph 12) January 22, 2007 at 11 a.m.

Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statements 

Due (10 days before conference) January 12, 2007

Last Date for Hearing

Dispositive Motions (Paragraph 11) December 11, 2006 at 9 a.m.

(42 days before Preliminary Pretrial Conference)

Deadline for completing any Discovery Directed 

to Expert and Fact Witnesses (Paragraph 10) August 11, 2006

Close of All Discovery October 13, 2006

Case 5:04-cv-03115-JW Document 261 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 6
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

The parties also stipulated to moving the hearing on Sportvision's Motion for Clarification

of Claim Construction of One Term of the '550 Patent from April 10, 2006 to April 25, 2006 at 1

p.m. 

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.

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 or any pretrial conference, in

addition to filing the paper electronically, the filing parties shall lodge with the Clerk's Office

a printed copy of the papers, in an envelop clearly marked "Chamber's Copy – Lodged for

the Chambers of Judge James Ware." The "Chamber's Copy" envelop must state the case

name and case number and be delivered on or before the close of the next court day

following the day the papers are filed electronically. See Standing Order Regarding Case

Management in Civil Cases.

Compliance with Discovery Plan and Reference to Magistrate Judge

2. The Court adopts the Discovery Plan proposed by the parties in their Joint Case Management

Statement. The parties are ordered to comply with the discovery plan. 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.

Document Management During Pretrial Discovery and Electronic Evidence Presentation

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

commencement of pretrial discovery, 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

Case 5:04-cv-03115-JW Document 261 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 6
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

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). 

 Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

4. Any party wishing to present expert witness testimony with respect to a claim or a defense

shall lodge with the Court and serve on all other parties the name, address, qualifications,

résumé and a written report which complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B) 63 days before

close of discovery. Expert witness disclosure must be made with respect to a person who is

either (a) specially retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony pursuant to

Fed.R.Evid. 702 or (b) a regular employee or agent or treating physician who may be called

to provide expert opinion testimony.

5. The parties are also required to lodge any supplemental reports to which any expert will

testify at trial in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B). 

6. Any party objecting to the qualifications or proposed testimony of an expert must file, serve

and notice a motion to exclude the expert or any portion of the expert's testimony in writing

in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, for hearing no later than 42 DAYS AFTER BOTH

EXPERT AND REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES ON A MONDAY (LAW AND

MOTION DAY)at 9:00 a.m. and preferably before or on the same day as the discovery

cutoff date at 9:00 a.m.

Rebuttal Expert Witnesses

7. If the testimony of the expert is intended solely to contradict or rebut opinion testimony on

the same subject matter identified by another party, the party proffering a rebuttal expert

shall make the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B), no later than 49 days prior

to discovery cutoff.

//

Case 5:04-cv-03115-JW Document 261 Filed 03/27/06 Page 3 of 6
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

Limitation on Testimony by Expert Witnesses

8. 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. 

Close of Discovery

9. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 26-2, all discovery, including supplemental disclosure, depositions of

fact witness and expert witnesses, must be completed on or before the deadline set forth in

the Case Schedule above. 

Last date for Hearing Dispositive Motions

10. The last day for hearing dispositive motions is set forth in the Case Schedule above. Any

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

Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference Statement and Proposed Order

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

lodge with Chambers on or before the deadline set forth in the Case Schedule above 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. 

12. The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to appear on the date set in the Case Schedule

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

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

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.

Case 5:04-cv-03115-JW Document 261 Filed 03/27/06 Page 4 of 6
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

14. 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.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

15. The parties are referred to the Court's ADR Program at (415) 522-2199. No later than the 

deadline set forth in the Case Schedule, the parties shall contact the ADR Program or the 

designated Magistrate Judge to schedule a conference.

 Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull: Corinne Lew (408) 535-5378

Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg: Bernadette Kunkel (408) 535-5357

Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd: Patty Cromwell (408) 535-5365

Dated: March 27, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03115-JW Document 261 Filed 03/27/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

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

Larry Vierra lvierra@vmmhd.com

Burt Magen bmagen@vmmhd.com

Laura L. Carroll lcarroll@burnslev.com

Merton E. Thompson mthompson@burnslev.com

Doyle B. Johnson dbjohnson@reedsmith.com

John P. Bovich jbovich@reedsmith.com

Kerry Hopkins khopkins@reedsmith.com

Scott D. Baker sbaker@reedsmith.com

Matthew H. Adler adlerm@pepperlaw.com

Nathan W. Dean deann@pepperlaw.com

Vincent V. Carissimi carissimiv@pepperlaw.com

Dated: March 27, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-03115-JW Document 261 Filed 03/27/06 Page 6 of 6