Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02934/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02934-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
HVAC Technology LLC
Counter-defendant
Southland Industries
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

1

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

CASE SCHEDULING ORDER 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HVAC TECHNOLOGY LLC, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

SOUTHLAND INDUSTRIES,

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

CASE SCHEDULING ORDER

(Re: Docket No. 22)

Based on the parties’ joint case management statement1and case management conference,

IT IS ORDERED that the following limits on discovery shall apply to this case, as set forth 

in the parties’ joint case management statement:2

 Each party shall be entitled to propound no more than 25 interrogatories, including all 

discrete subparts, absent agreement of the other party or leave of court, pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 33. 

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1), depositions shall be limited to seven hours of live 

deposition testimony time per day, although the total time including breaks may exceed 

seven hours. 

 The fact that a witness may have been designated and deposed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 30(b)(6) does not preclude that witness from being deposed in his/her individual 

capacity, and vice versa.

 No fixed limit is currently ordered on the number of requests for production of 

documents or requests for admission that may be propounded by a party. 

 

1

See Docket No. 22.

2

See Docket No. 22 at ¶ 8.

Case 4:15-cv-02934-KAW Document 24 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

CASE SCHEDULING ORDER 

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

 Discovery-related documents shall be served electronically, and documents to be 

served, but not filed through ECF, need only be served by emailing scanned versions of 

the documents to:

o Robert P. Andris and Michael D. Kanach for Southland Industries at:

randris@gordonrees.com

mkanach@gordonrees.com

with a copy to

kshaw@gordonrees.com

o Mark D. Marrello for HVAC Technology LLC at:

Mark@ImperiumPW.com

with a copy to

Lester@ImperiumPW.com

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for discovery disputes that may arise, the parties shall

proceed according to the following procedure. If the dispute cannot be resolved by an in-person

meet-and-confer, the parties may within five days of the meeting submit a five-page joint letter

with a one-page cover. Letter briefs must comply with the following requirements:

 The cover page must contain the parties’ names, one line summarizing the nature of the 

dispute, and an attestation that the parties have met and conferred in person. If the 

parties have met telephonically, the cover page must contain the reasons for the 

telephone meeting. 

 Within the five pages, the parties shall include a joint statement of the facts necessary 

for the court to render its decision. Each party shall provide summaries of the disputes, 

the appropriate legal authority, and each party’s final proposed compromise. To 

enhance ease of comparison, parties are encouraged to use tables and charts 

summarizing their arguments. 

 The letter brief shall be written in Times New Roman, twelve-point font. Margins shall 

be no less than one inch on each side. The briefs may be single-spaced.

 Parties shall file the joint letter brief under the Civil Events category of “Motions and 

Related Filings  Motions – General  Discovery Letter Brief.” 

Although parties may present more than one dispute in the joint letter brief, there is no limit 

to the number of letter briefs they may file. If multiple disputes require multiple letter briefs, the 

parties are encouraged to use as many as necessary to provide the court with well-supported 

arguments. A single dispute, however, is permitted only one joint letter brief. Attempts to 

circumvent this limit will be viewed with disfavor. Upon review of the joint letter brief, the court 

will advise the parties how it intends to proceed. The court may take the dispute under submission,

Case 4:15-cv-02934-KAW Document 24 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

CASE SCHEDULING ORDER 

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

hold a telephone conference with the parties, order a hearing or further briefing, or require the 

parties to appear at the courthouse for further meet-and-confer.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this 

case:

Plaintiff’s preliminary infringement contentions and document production ..........Oct. 6, 2015

Defendant’s preliminary invalidity contentions and document production .........Nov. 20, 2015

Exchange of proposed terms and claim elements for construction ........................ Dec. 4, 2015

Exchange of preliminary claim constructions and extrinsic evidence ................. Dec. 18, 2015

Deadline for motions to add parties or amend pleadings ...................................... Jan. 13, 2016

Joint claim construction and prehearing statement ............................................... Jan. 19, 2016

Completion of claim construction discovery, including experts...........................Feb. 18, 2016

Plaintiff’s opening claim construction brief........................................................... Mar. 4, 2016

Defendant’s responsive claim construction brief ................................................. Mar. 18, 2016

Plaintiff’s reply claim construction brief.............................................................. Mar. 25, 2016

Claim construction hearing......................................................................................Apr. 8, 2016

Plaintiff’s final infringement contentions............................................................... May 6, 2016

Defendant’s advice of counsel document production ............................................ June 8, 2016

Completion of fact discovery ................................................................................July 19, 2016

Service of expert reports on issues for which 

a party bears burden of proof under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)................................July 31, 2016

Rebuttal expert reports .........................................................................................Aug. 31, 2016

Close of expert discovery .....................................................................................Sept. 30, 2016

Deadline for hearing dispositive motions.............................................................Nov. 15, 2016

Deadline for private mediation.............................................................................Nov. 25, 2016

Pretrial conference statement ................................................................................. Dec. 2, 2016

Pretrial conference................................................................................................ Dec. 13, 2016

Jury trial................................................................................................................... Jan. 3, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-02934-KAW Document 24 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

CASE SCHEDULING ORDER 

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

SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02934-KAW Document 24 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 4