Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 340 Filed 02/21/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
`14336
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et
`al.,
`
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,
`LLC d/b/a XFINITY, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00059-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00062-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Charter’s Expedited Motion to Continue the March 3, 2025, Trial Date
`
`(the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Charter Communications, Inc., et al. (“Defendants”). (Dkt. No.
`
`338.) In the Motion, Defendants request that their “March 3, 2025, trial date be continued to a
`
`subsequent trial setting, potentially as early as April 7, 2025.” (Id. at 1.) Defendants argue that the
`
`trial set in the above-captioned Lead Case for March 3, 2025 should be continued because their
`
`damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, “will be testifying as the damages expert for the defendant Anker
`
`Innovations Ltd at a week-long trial in the District Court for the District of Delaware on March 3-
`
`7. See Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd., No. 1:21-
`
`cv-00339-RGA, (D. Del.); Dkt. 313-1, ¶4.” (Id.)
`
`Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is DENIED.
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ arguments, Mr. Bakewell will not be required to be “in Marshall and
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 340 Filed 02/21/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
`14337
`
`Wilmington on the same day.” (Id. at 3.) Instead, it is ORDERED that the Parties shall, in good
`
`faith, work to structure the trial such that Mr. Bakewell can fully testify by the end of the day on
`
`Wednesday, March 5, 2025, enabling him to travel to testify in Fundamental Innovation Systems
`
`International LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd., No. 1:21-cv-00339-RGA, (D. Del.) by Friday, March
`
`7, 2025. Additionally, the Court finds that Charter’s Unopposed Motion to Expedite Briefing on
`
`Its Motion to Continue the March 3, 2025, Trial Date (Dkt. No. 337) should be and hereby is
`
`DENIED AS MOOT.1
`
`1 The Court further notes that Defendants have failed to comply with this District’s Local Rules, as follows:
`
`First, the Local Rules require that “all motions must be accompanied by a ‘certificate of conference’ at the end of the
`motion following the certificate of service.” Local Rule CV-7(i). Both motions addressed in this Order fail to comply
`with this Local Rule. (Dkt. Nos. 337 at 4, 338 at 7.)
`
`Second, the Local Rules state that “[e]mergency motions are only those necessary to avoid imminent, irreparable harm
`such that a motion pursuant to LOCAL RULE CV-7(e) to shorten the period for a response is inadequate.” Local Rule
`CV-7(l). While the Motion is titled as an “e xpedited motion” on its face , on the docket it was filed as an
`“EMERGENCY MOTION.” Moreover, counsel for Defendants called the Court and notified the Court’s staff that
`Defendants had filed an emergency motion in compliance with Local Rule CV-7(l). However, the Motion fails to
`“clearly state[] the alleged imminent, irreparable harm and the circumstances making proceeding under LOCAL
`RULE CV-7(e) inadequate.” Local Rule CV-7(l). The Motion fails to even use the words “imminent, irreparable
`harm,” let alone show that such harm exists.
`
`Defendants are on notice that their continued failure to follow this District’s Local Rules and the rules of this Court
`may result in appropriate sanctions. The Court’s rules exist for valid and important reasons. All counsel are expected
`to carefully comply with them.
`
`2
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of February, 2025.
`
`