Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00936/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00936-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patio Shoppers, Inc.
Defendant
RH US, LLC
Plaintiff
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff
Restoration Hardware, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement, 

 4:15-cv-00936-DMR 

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

4300 Bohannon Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

MICHAEL J. MCCUE (SBN: 296425) 

Email: MMcCue@LRRLaw.com 

AARON D. JOHNSON (SBN: 261747) 

Email: ADJohnson@LRRLAW.com 

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP 

4300 Bohannon Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

(650) 391-1380 (Tel.) 

(650) 391-1395 (Fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.

RH US, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,

a Delaware corporation, and RH US, 

LLC, a Delaware limited liability 

company, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

PATIO SHOPPERS, INC., a California 

corporation,

 Defendant. 

Civil Case No.: 4:15-cv-00936-DMR

The Honorable Magistrate Judge 

Donna M. Ryu 

PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION 

HARDWARE, INC. AND RH US, 

LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER

Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US, LLC (collectively, “RH”) 

hereby submit this Case Management Statement and Proposed Order pursuant to the 

Court’s Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference (Doc. No. 5) and Civil 

Local Rule 16-9. 

1. Jurisdiction and Service: 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because this action involves a claim arising under the 

Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.

 Defendant was served on April 13, 2015. After being served, Defendant 

(AS MODIFIED)

Case 4:15-cv-00936-DMR Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 7
 2 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement, 

 4:15-cv-00936-DMR 

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

4300 Bohannon Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

expressed an interest in resolving this matter amicably. A settlement agreement has 

been signed, but it is not effective until certain contractual conditions occur on June 

1, 2015. If those conditions occur, RH will file a dismissal of this case. 

2. Facts:

RH is an innovative and popular luxury brand for home furnishings. RH 

holds copyright registrations for photographs of its renowned products. Defendant 

is using unauthorized reproductions of RH’s copyrighted photographs to advertise, 

promote, and sell knockoff products. RH brought this action for damages and other 

appropriate relief. 

3. Legal Issues:

x RH’s ownership of the copyrights in the images at issue; 

x Whether Defendant has infringed RH’s copyrights; and 

x The amount of damages Defendant should pay RH. 

4. Pending And Anticipated Motions: 

None.

5. Anticipated Pleading Amendments: 

None.

6. Evidence Preservation: 

RH’s counsel certifies that it has reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the 

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. Because the parties have been 

engaged in settlement discussions, there has not been a conference held regarding 

what reasonable and proportionate steps should be taken to preserve electronic 

evidence. However, RH confirms that it has taken steps to preserve evidence 

relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action. 

7. Disclosures:

Because the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, the parties have not 

conducted a Rule 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery 

plan.

Case 4:15-cv-00936-DMR Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 7
 3 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement, 

 4:15-cv-00936-DMR 

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

4300 Bohannon Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

8. Discovery: 

Because the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, the parties have not 

conducted a Rule 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery 

plan.

9. Class Actions: 

Not applicable. 

10. Related Cases: 

RH has filed several enforcement actions in this district against other 

infringers of RH’s intellectual property: 

x Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL;

x Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Stanislaus Funding, Inc. et al.,

Case No. 3:15-00892-EDL;

x Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Chicago Wicker & Trading Co.,

Case No. 3:15-00894-EDL; 

x Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Heng Zhong,

Case No. 4:15-cv-00937-KAW;

x Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. HFONC, Inc., et al.,

Case No. 4:15-cv-00954-DMR;

x Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Light in the Box Ltd.,

Case No. 4:15-cv-00924-KAW; 

x Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. PHX Lighting, LLC,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00918-EDL; 

x Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Topson Lighting, Ltd.,

Case No. 5:15-cv-00938-HRL; and 

x Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. HomeLava Ltd.,

 Case No. 3:15-cv-00926-EDL. 

In an order dated May 12, 2015, in Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South 

Case 4:15-cv-00936-DMR Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 7
 4 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement, 

 4:15-cv-00936-DMR 

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

4300 Bohannon Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL, (Doc. 13) Magistrate 

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte determined that the following cases are related under 

local Civil Rule 3-12: 

x Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL;

x Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Stanislaus Funding, Inc. et al.,

Case No. 3:15-00892-EDL; and 

x Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Chicago Wicker & Trading Co.,

Case No. 3:15-00894-EDL. 

Each of these cases have been assigned to Magistrate Judge Laporte. With 

respect to the other cases, while RH does not believe they are related cases under 

Civil Local Rule 3-12 because they involve different defendants selling different 

products, RH does not oppose assignment to a single judge. See, e.g., EIT Holdings 

LLC v. Yelp!, Inc., No. C 10–05623 WHA, 2011 WL 2192820, 2 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 

2011) (“Given the disparity in defendants, websites, and other disparate issues 

discussed herein like damages, willfulness, and discovery supervision, it is worth 

adding that the allegations against each defendant would not be related under our 

civil local rules even if brought here as separate actions. See Civil L.R. 3–

12(a)(2)”).

11. Relief:

RH seeks both injunctive relief and damages under the Copyright Act. If 

necessary, RH may opt for statutory damages under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 

504(c). 

12. Settlement and ADR: 

The parties are engaged in settlement discussions. Because of the progress of 

settlement discussions, the parties have not engaged in discussions regarding ADR. 

13. Consent to Magistrate For All Purposes: 

RH has consented to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for all 

Case 4:15-cv-00936-DMR Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 4 of 7
 5 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement, 

 4:15-cv-00936-DMR 

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

4300 Bohannon Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

purposes.

14. Other References: 

This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master, 

or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 

15. Narrowing of Issues: 

Because the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, the parties have not 

discussed narrowing the issues. 

16. Expedited Trial Procedure: 

Because the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, the parties have not 

discussed whether this case can be handled under the Expedited Trial Procedures. 

17. Scheduling:

Because the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, the parties have not 

discussed discovery scheduling. 

18. Trial:

RH did not demand a jury trial. Defendant has been served but has not yet 

appeared in this action and, therefore, it is unknown whether Defendant will demand 

a jury trial. RH preliminarily estimates that a bench trial would require between 3 to 

5 trial days. 

19. Disclosure of Non Party Interested Entities or Persons: 

RH has filed its certification of interested entities or persons. Pursuant to 

Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware, 

Inc. and RH US, LLC are each direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of 

Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded Delaware corporation. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, the undersigned certifies that, as of this 

date, other than the named parties, there are no entities or persons who have a

financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, 

or any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of

the proceeding.

Case 4:15-cv-00936-DMR Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 5 of 7
 6 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement, 

 4:15-cv-00936-DMR 

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

4300 Bohannon Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

20. Professional Conduct: 

RH’s counsel of record has reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct 

for the Northern District of California. 

21. Other Matters That Would Facilitate the Just, Speedy and 

Inexpensive Disposition of this Matter. 

Because of the settlement discussions, RH requests that the Case Management 

Conference be continued for sixty (60) days. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: May 27, 2015 By: /s/ Michael J. McCue 

MICHAEL J. MCCUE

AARON D. JOHNSON 

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP 

4300 Bohannon Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

(650) 391-1380 (Tel.) 

(650) 391-1395 (Fax) 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. 

RH US, LLC. 

Case 4:15-cv-00936-DMR Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 6 of 7
 7 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement, 

 4:15-cv-00936-DMR 

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

4300 Bohannon Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

Based on the PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. AND 

RH US, LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER filed by Plaintiffs on May 27, 2015, the Court hereby continues the Case 

Management Conference for this case for 60 days until _________________, 2015 

at ________ am/pm. All related deadlines under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 

and 25 and applicable case management and discovery local rules and standing 

orders shall be continued to accord with the new conference date. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: 

 By: ____________________________________

The Honorable Magistrate Judge 

Donna M. Ryu 

to August 12

1:30

May 28, 2015

Plaintiffs shall serve

the Defendant with a copy of this Order and file a proof of service with the court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00936-DMR Document 14 Filed 05/28/15 Page 7 of 7