Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 173 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`10TALES INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`BYTEDANCE LTD., AND BYTEDANCE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`To All Parties and Counsel of Record:
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-3868-YGR
`
`ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO INFORM
`COURT WHETHER THEY CONSENT TO
`MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES
`
`
`
`Please be advised that the pending tutorial scheduled for June 29, 2022 and the motion for
`
`claim constructions scheduled for July 13, 2022 are hereby taken off calendar.
`
`The parties are advised that the District is currently in a judicial emergency resulting from
`
`increased case volumes, COVID-19 backlogs, limited resources, and judicial vacancies. The
`
`District’s weighted caseload by district judge is now 816; the highest in the Ninth Circuit.1 In
`
`addition, the landscape of the Court’s docket has changed in recent days. The Court anticipates
`
`being in back-to-back trials from August through at least December 2022. Additional criminal
`
`trials are anticipated throughout the first half of 2023 as the Court is presiding over a series of
`
`felony criminal cases involving 55 defendants with Nuestra Familia ties. These trials will impact
`
`the Court’s response time to pending motions.
`
`To avoid any delay in resolving this action, the parties are ORDERED TO MEET AND
`
`CONFER on the following options (and any other possible options):
`
`
`1 United States Courts, “Judicial Emergencies,” (last visited June 10, 2022)
`https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/judicial-emergencies.
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 173 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`First, the parties may stipulate to submit the claim construction disputes to a special
`
`master, whose decision they will agree to accept. The case will then continue to proceed and the
`
`Court will provide further scheduling.
`
`Second, the parties may consent to reassignment of the case to a magistrate judge for all
`
`purposes, including entry of final judgment. See Civil L.R. 73-1(b). This option is being made
`
`available because the magistrate judges in this District have smaller civil dockets and no felony
`
`criminal cases and will adjudicate this case more expeditiously than the undersigned district judge.
`
`The parties are further advised that they may jointly request assignment to a specific magistrate
`
`judge. For the parties’ convenience, a consent form is attached hereto; forms are also available at
`
`http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, in the “Forms” section. Magistrate judge bios detailing their
`
`extraordinary credentials are available at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges/.
`
`With respect to this issue, the Court notes that two magistrate judges in particular have
`
`background which may be of interest to the parties. The biographies of the Magistrate Judges
`
`DeMarchi and van Kuelen read as follows, and both have confirmed to this Court that they have
`
`the ability to closely maintain the parties’ current schedule:
`
`
`Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi joined the court in 2018
`after 22 years as a litigator in private practice in Silicon Valley.
`
`Before taking the bench, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi was a partner with
`Fenwick & West LLP where she represented technology and life
`sciences companies in patent infringement and other intellectual
`property matters in a wide range of industries, including e-commerce,
`computer hardware and software, industrial enzymes, pharmaceuticals,
`medical devices, financial services, communications, and consumer
`products. She also served as general counsel to the firm and as a
`member of the executive committee. . . .
`
`Before joining Fenwick & West, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi served for
`two years as a trial attorney with the Civil Division of the United States
`Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and clerked for District
`Judge Steven J. McAuliffe in the District of New Hampshire.
`
`Magistrate Judge DeMarchi earned her law degree cum laude from
`Harvard Law School and her undergraduate degree with honors from
`Stanford University.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 173 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen joined the Court following
`28 years as a commercial and intellectual property litigator in Silicon
`Valley.
`
`Magistrate Judge van Keulen’s private law practice focused
`substantially on intellectual property cases in federal and state courts
`and in private arbitrations, with particular experience handling
`technology and commercial disputes involving semiconductor,
`computer, and electronics technologies. Magistrate Judge van Keulen
`prepared dozens of cases for trial and served as lead trial counsel in a
`number of cases in the Northern District. . . .
`
`In addition to her active law practice, Magistrate Judge van Keulen
`served on the Northern District’s Patent Local Rules Advisory
`Subcommittee from 2006 to 2014 and has lectured and written widely
`on antitrust and patent law and federal procedure.
`
`Magistrate Judge van Keulen graduated from the University of
`California, Davis and UCLA School of Law, then practiced law with the
`Thelen law firm (1988-2008) and then as a partner with O’Melveny &
`Myers where she served as Litigation Practice Leader at the Silicon
`Valley office until taking the bench.
`
`Each of these jurists, and others, are more than qualified to preside over the instant dispute. This
`
`Court has rarely issued orders such as the instant one, but is compelled to do so given the current
`
`situation.
`
`The parties are hereby DIRECTED to advise the Court, no later than Tuesday, June 14,
`
`2022, whether one of the two options outlined above is acceptable or some other alternative. The
`
`Court has no good faith estimate as to when the motion will be returned to calendar.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated:
`
`June 10, 2022
`
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3
`
`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
`
`