`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OYSTER OPTICS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CIENA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 20-cv-02354-JSW
`
`
`ORDER VACATING CASE
`MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
`SETTING DEADLINES
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 143
`
`
`
`The Court has received and considered the parties’ joint case management conference
`
`statement and VACATES the case management conference scheduled for April 28, 2023. The
`
`Court has considered Ciena’s proposal but it will enter a modified version of the schedule set forth
`
`in the parties’ statement. If this schedule needs to be modified following the Court’s ruling on the
`
`motions in Oyster I (17-5920), the parties may submit requests to the Court. The Court will defer
`
`setting a pretrial and trial date.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the following deadlines will govern:
`
`EVENT
`
`Fact discovery cut-off
`
`DEADLINE
`
`October 27, 2023
`
`Deadline to serve opening reports by parties
`
`November 17, 2023
`
`who bear burden of proof on issues
`
`Deadline to serve rebuttal reports
`
`December 15, 2023
`
`Expert discovery cut-off
`
`January 26, 2024
`
`Deadline to meet and confer regarding
`
`February 9, 2024
`
`substance of Daubert and dispositive
`
`motions**
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-02354-JSW Document 144 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Deadline to file dispositive motions and
`
`February 23, 2024
`
`Daubert motions that are relevant to
`
`dispositive motions**
`
`Mediation cut-off
`
`March 1, 2024
`
`Opposition to dispositive motions and Daubert
`
`March 15, 2024
`
`motions
`
`Replies to dispositive motions and Daubert
`
`March 29, 2024
`
`motions
`
`Hearing on dispositive motions and Daubert
`
`April 19, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.
`
`motions
`
`**
`
`The parties shall limit their Daubert motions to the portions of expert testimony implicated
`
`by the motions for summary judgment. The Court will permit further Daubert motions in advance
`
`of the pretrial conference.
`
`The Court is requiring the parties to meet and confer, as that term is defined in the
`
`Northern District Civil Local Rules, in light of the parties’ resolution of certain issues in Oyster I
`
`after the opening briefs were filed. In addition, if the parties are going to cross-move on issues,
`
`the Court will require a four brief format, with the opening brief filed by the party who bears the
`
`burden at trial on that issue. For example, if Oyster is going to move for summary judgment on
`
`infringement, and Ciena intends to move for summary judgment on non-infringement, Oyster will
`
`file an opening brief, Ciena will file an opposition and cross-motion, Oyster will file an opposition
`
`and reply, and Ciena will file a reply.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 24, 2023
`
`______________________________________
`JEFFREY S. WHITE
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
