throbber
Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 353 Filed 01/22/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`FINJAN LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONICWALL, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF
`
`
`ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS AT ECF
`346, 347, 348, 350, AND 351
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court STRIKES the motions at ECF 346, 347, 348, 350, and 351. Finjan LLC’s
`
`motions at ECF 348 and 350 are set for hearing on June 24, 2021—well after trial begins.
`
`SonicWall, Inc.’s motion at ECF 347 was improperly set for hearing on February 18, 2021.
`
`The Court’s Standing Order is clear that “parties are responsible for scheduling Daubert
`
`hearings at least 60 days before trial.” Standing Order Re Civil Case § IV.A.2; see also id. § III.A
`
`(motions “are heard by reservation only”). The parties are aware of the Court’s scheduling
`
`timeline. See id. § IV.C (“the Court is setting hearings approximately 5 months out”). And as for
`
`SonicWall’s motion, it was filed a bare 28 days in advance of the desired hearing date in violation
`
`of Local Rule 7-2(a). See also id. § IV.B (motions must be fully briefed 14 days before hearing).
`
`Further, the Court advises the parties that the Court will not grant an order shortening time to hear
`
`these motions. The parties were advised of these requirements at the initial case management
`
`conference and all counsel are familiar with this Court’s requirements for Daubert motions having
`
`litigated other cases before this judge.
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 353 Filed 01/22/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`The requirement of reserving a hearing at least 60 days before trial will not be altered in
`
`the event that the trial date is modified due to COVID-19 restrictions. This case will proceed on
`
`the currently set schedule through the final pretrial conference regardless of trial continuances
`
`caused by court closure.
`
`The parties may include these motions “in their final pretrial motions in limine.” Standing
`
`Order Re Civil Case § IV.A.2. The Court reminds the parties that they are “limited to 5 pretrial
`
`motions in limine of 5 pages each.” Id.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 22, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket