Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-12102-RWZ.
September 19, 2005
ORDER CONCERNING SCHEDULE
This is a case of excesses. At last count, the parties have filed a total of twenty-two (22) dispositive motions and have raised innumerable discovery disputes. Motions for reconsideration abound, and there is hardly a motion that does not spawn requests to file excessive briefs as well as replies and sur replies. The total number of filings stands at 712. The difficulties for the Court are compounded by the fact that well more than one half of the documents submitted are to be filed under seal.
The current operative complaint is the third amended version, and defendants have counterclaimed. Although the parties agree that the core question in the case is the relatively simple one, whether defendants by-passed plaintiff's security mechanism to enter and improperly use plaintiff's maintenance code to service data storage systems of plaintiff's customers, that question has been clothed in copyright, trade secret, trade mark, patent and antitrust claims and defenses.
There have been two interlocutory appeals, the first concerning a discovery matter, and the second concerning a preliminary injunction. The latter resulted in a 2 to 1 decision by the Federal Circuit reversing this Court's order granting the injunction, and plaintiff has moved for rehearing en banc. The parties disagree about the effect of the ruling on the remaining claims in the case. That disagreement carries over to the schedule to reach ultimate resolution.
After entry of the preliminary injunction, and before decision by the Federal Circuit, this Court denied defendants' request for a stay and ordered that trial commence on November 14, 2005 and that all discovery be complete by June 30, 2005. The Court also set a substantive motion schedule with a deadline for filing motions by August 22, 2005, and which culminated in oral argument on October 20, 2005. It is now clear to all parties and the Court that the decision of the Federal Circuit has changed the landscape and that the schedule has to be changed.
Accordingly, it is ordered,
First, the trial date is vacated. The Court will set a new date for trying all issues then remaining after the appellate process has been completed. It will do so in cooperation with counsel, having in mind the impact on any trial of the final appellate ruling.
Second, the discovery deadline of June 30, 2005 remains in place subject only to cleaning up pending discovery disputes. That means discovery is closed and may be reopened only if, in this Court's judgment, the final appellate ruling so requires.
Third, the hearing date for the pending substantive motions is vacated. The parties shall attempt to agree on a time frame for completing their filings on these motions and for hearing argument.
Fourth, the parties shall file no further substantive or discovery motions without first obtaining leave of Court.