Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 108 Filed 12/27/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY (SB# 175421)
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`PHILIP OU (SB# 259896)
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`JOSEPH J. RUMPLER, II (SB# 296941)
`josephrumpler@paulhastings.com
`DAVID OKANO (SB#278485)
`davidokano@paulhastings.com
`ANDY LEGOLVAN (SB# 292520)
`andylegolvan@paulhastings.com
`BORIS LUBARSKY (SB# 324896)
`borislubarsky@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1106
`Telephone: 1(650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: 1(650) 320-1900
`
`MATTHIAS KAMBER (SB#232147)
`matthiaskamber@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`101 California Street, 48th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: 1(415) 856-7000
`Facsimile: 1(415)856-7100
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.’S
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SHORTEN
`TIME FOR AN EARLIER HEARING
`OR DETERMINATION ON THE
`PAPERS ON DEMARAY LLC’S
`MOTION FOR A SUBSEQUENT CASE
`MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
`(DKT. NO. 92)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 108 Filed 12/27/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied”) respectfully moves the Court, pursuant to Civil
`Local Rule 6-3, for an order for an earlier hearing on Defendant Demaray LLC’s (“Demaray”)
`Motion for Subsequent Case Management Conference, Dkt. No. 92 (“Demaray’s Motion”) or in
`the alternative, pursuant to L.R. 7-1(b) for Demaray’s Motion to be decided on the papers. Demaray
`does not oppose the Court deciding whether to hold a further Case Management Conference
`(“CMC”) on the papers and, as explained in Applied’s concurrently filed response to Demaray’s
`Motion, Applied does not oppose the Court holding a further CMC if the Court believes one is
`necessary. Dkt. No. 107 (“Applied’s Response”).
`Currently the hearing regarding Demaray’s Motion is set for April 21, 2022 (five months
`from now). As explained in Applied’s Response, Demaray has repeatedly used the purported need
`for a further CMC delay this case from proceeding in favor of its lawsuits against Applied’s
`customers. Applied does not oppose the Court holding a further CMC if the Court believes one is
`necessary, but objects to Demaray’s continued reliance on the fact that the Court has not yet set a
`further CMC as ‘justification’ for its ongoing efforts to delay this case from moving forward.
`Accordingly, Applied respectfully requests, pursuant to L.R. 7-1(b), for Demaray’s Motion
`as to whether a subsequent CMC should be held be decided on the papers. To the extent the Court
`believes a hearing to decide Demaray’s Motion is needed, Applied respectfully requests that the
`Court grant an expedited hearing at least 14 days after Demaray’s reply (due January 3, 2022):
`January 17, 2021, or as soon as the Court is available thereafter. Since Demaray does not oppose
`the Court deciding whether to hold a further CMC on the papers (without a hearing), Applied
`respectfully submits that a hearing on Demaray’s Motion is unlikely to be necessary.
`Currently, the next available hearing date is April 21, 2022. Delaying resolution on
`Demaray’s Motion, which simply addresses whether the Court should hold a further CMC, until
`this time is prejudicial to Applied as it would potentially allow Demaray to continue to delay
`compliance with discovery and case deadlines in the absence of the Court setting a case schedule
`(which Demaray proposes happening only after the Court holds a further CMC). Demaray would
`suffer no prejudice from granting this motion – the parties will have the exact same briefing
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`APPLIED’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
`AND EARLIER HEARING
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 108 Filed 12/27/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`schedule, only the hearing date or resolution of Demaray’s Motion would be expedited. Further,
`Demaray does not oppose this motion to shorten time. Ou Decl. ¶ 3.
`In consideration of judicial economy, conservation of the parties resources, and allowing
`this case’s deadlines to promptly proceed, including Demaray’s compliance with Patent Local
`Rules, Applied respectfully request the Court grant this Motion and set the hearing date as soon as
`the Court is available thereafter or to rule on Demaray’s Motion on the papers without oral
`argument.
`
`DATED: December 27, 2021
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY
`MATTHIAS KAMBER
`PHILIP OU
`JOSEPH J. RUMPLER, II
`DAVID OKANO
`ANDY LEGOLVAN
`BORIS LUBARSKY
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`By: /s/ Philip Ou
`
`PHILIP OU
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLIED MATERIALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`APPLIED’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
`AND EARLIER HEARING
`
`