From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomson Instrument Co. v. Biotage Ab

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California
Jul 5, 2007
Civil 06cv2305-BTM (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 5, 2007)

Opinion


THOMSON INSTRUMENT CO., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BIOTAGE AB, Defendant. Civil No. 06cv2305-BTM (BLM) United States District Court, S.D. California. July 5, 2007

          RDER CONTINUING SECOND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

          BARBARA L. MAJOR, 1 Magistrate Judge.

         On July 5, 2007, Arthur Wellman, counsel for Plaintiffs, and Debra Nye, counsel for Defendant, jointly contacted the Court to request a brief continuance of the July 13, 2007 telephonic Case Management Conference. Counsel represented that due to ongoing settlement discussions following the District Judge's denial of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 34], as well as those considerations surrounding the filing of potential counterclaims on or before July 18, 2007, a status conference would be more efficient if held after the deadline for filing counterclaims. Counsel therefore requested that the telephonic Case Management Conference be continued approximately two (2) weeks.

         In light of the parties' representations, and good cause appearing, the telephonic, attorneys-only Case Management Conference currently scheduled for July 13, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. is hereby continued to July 27, 2007 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the Court's calendar will allow. The Court will initiate the conference call.

         No later than July 24, 2007, the parties shall meet and confer pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and file a joint Case Management Statement. The statement must address all of the topics set forth in Rule 26 as well as the following:

a. Any proposed modification of the deadlines provided for in the Patent Local Rules, and the effect of any such modification on the date and time of the Claim Construction Hearing, if any;

b. Whether the court will hear live testimony at the Claim Construction Hearing;

c. The need for and specific limitations on discovery relating to claim construction, including depositions of percipient and expert witnesses;

d. The order of presentation at the Claim Construction Hearing;

e. Any proposed modifications to the limitations on discovery imposed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or by local rule; and

f. Any issues or agreements relating to electronically stored information or protective orders.

         Parties are hereby warned that failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thomson Instrument Co. v. Biotage Ab

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California
Jul 5, 2007
Civil 06cv2305-BTM (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 5, 2007)
Case details for

Thomson Instrument Co. v. Biotage Ab

Case Details

Full title:THOMSON INSTRUMENT CO., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BIOTAGE AB, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California

Date published: Jul 5, 2007

Citations

Civil 06cv2305-BTM (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 5, 2007)