Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 62 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patrick Hicks
`
`Nevada State Bar No. 004632
`
`LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
`3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 300
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
`
`
`Tel: (702) 862-8800
`
`
`
`Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
`Email: phicks@littler.com
`
`H. Albert Liou, admitted pro hac vice
`JONES DAY
`717 Texas Ave. Suite 3300
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: (832) 239-3939
`Email: aliou@jonesday.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Allegiant Travel Company
`
`Michael A Oblon, admitted pro hac vice
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001.2113
`Tel: (202) 879-3939
`Email: moblon@jonesday.com
`
`Keith Davis, admitted pro hac vice
`JONES DAY
`2727 North Harwood
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (214) 969-4528
`Email: kbdavis@jonesday.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES BY ALLEGIANT
`TRAVEL COMPANY IN OPPOSITION
`TO R2 SOLUTIONS LLC’S MOTION
`TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE
`AND CANCEL CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`ALLEGIANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE
`
`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 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 62 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`R2 HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE CASE SCHEDULE
`SHOULD BE MODIFIED .................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`APPLICABLE LAW .............................................................................................. 1
`B.
`FACT DISCOVERY AND THE PATENT LOCAL RULES REMAIN
`RELEVANT UNTIL THERE IS A STIPULATION OR JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT ......................................................................................... 2
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`CASE NO: 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`ALLEGIANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 62 Filed 11/28/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Hernandez v. Backgroundchecks.com, LLC, No. 220CV01766GMNBNW,
`2021 WL 1997253, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2021) ..................................................................... 1
`
`Irving v. Cnty. of Sacramento,
`231 F. App'x 584 (9th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp.
`175 F.R.D. 554 (D. Nev. 1997) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`6A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice &
`Procedure, § 1522.2 (3d ed. 2010) ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`LPR 1-13 ..................................................................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`LPR 1-14 ......................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rule 16(b) ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`CASE NO: 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`ALLEGIANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE
`
`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 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 62 Filed 11/28/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`After this Court denied R2’s motion to stay discovery and also denied R2’s appeal of that
`Order, R2 requests – yet again – to avoid compliance with its discovery obligations. The Court
`should reject R2’s third attempt to derail the case schedule. If R2 wants this case to go away, it
`should stipulate to a judgment of non-infringement to resolve the parties’ case or controversy that
`had prompted Allegiant to file its Complaint for declaratory judgment relief. So that Allegiant
`does not continue facing R2’s threats of future lawsuits on these patents, this case should move
`forward until the Court enters a judgment of non-infringement.
`
`R2 HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE CASE SCHEDULE
`SHOULD BE MODIFIED
`APPLICABLE LAW
`A.
`Under Rule 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the
`judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The party seeking to modify the scheduling order has
`the burden to show good cause. Irving v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 231 F. App'x 584, 585 (9th Cir.
`2007) (“A party may only obtain a modification of a pretrial scheduling order ‘upon a showing of
`good cause.’”), quoting Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir.1992).
`As the party seeking to modify the case schedule, R2 bears “the heavy burden of making a ‘strong
`showing’ why discovery should be denied.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Tracinda Corp.
`175 F.R.D. 554, 556 (D. Nev. 1997), citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp, 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th
`Cir. 1975). When evaluating a motion to modify a case schedule, “the Court is guided by the
`objectives of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 that ensures a ‘just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
`every action.’” Hernandez, 2021 WL 1997253 at *1, citing Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green,
`294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). “[M]any more motions seeking modification of scheduling
`orders are denied than are granted.” 6A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay
`Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 1522.2, at 322 (3d ed. 2010) (citing numerous cases).
`
`
`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-
`CASE NO: 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`ALLEGIANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 62 Filed 11/28/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`B.
`
`FACT DISCOVERY AND THE PATENT LOCAL RULES REMAIN
`RELEVANT UNTIL THERE IS A STIPULATION OR JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`The fact that R2 does not want to be in this Court does not excuse it from abiding by
`discovery obligations and this Court’s case schedule and rules. But since filing this Motion, R2
`has refused to produce documents and comply with the Patent Local Rules. On November 14th
`(the same date that R2 filed this Motion), R2 objected to all of Allegiant’s First Set of Requests
`for Production as being “irrelevant” and refused to produce any documents. (See Ex. A.) Also on
`that date, R2 did not comply with the Court’s deadline for the parties to exchange proposed claim
`terms and phrases for claim construction. Pursuant to LPR 1-13, Allegiant had served its list of
`terms and phrase for claim construction on November 14th, but R2’s counsel merely sent a
`message by email stating that “[i]t is R2’s position that no terms need construction in light of
`R2’s response to Allegiant’s non-infringement contentions…” (See Ex. B.)
`In the motion that it filed on September 6, 2022, R2 argued that “[t]he Court should stay
`discovery, including the parties’ obligations under the Local Patent Rules.” (ECF No. 44, at 3,
`emphasis added.) R2 makes the very same argument here. In the Order denying R2’s motion, the
`Court concluded that “[i]f [R2] truly believed no dispute exists, then it would simply agree to the
`declaratory relief [Allegiant] seeks” and “[o]therwise, [R2] should provide [Allegiant] with the
`needed information so this case can proceed.” (Order, ECF No. 52, at 8.) Since R2 still refuses
`to agree to Allegiant’s declaratory relief, R2’s latest motion should be denied for the same reason.
`In this latest motion, R2 asserts that the Court can dispense with claim construction
`proceedings because R2 did not “contravene any statements in Allegiant’s Non-Infringement
`Contentions” and also did not serve any Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions. But that does not establish good cause to modify the case schedule. Claim
`construction may still be relevant in this Action notwithstanding that R2 declined to assert patent
`infringement in this Action. This week, Allegiant plans to file its motion for summary judgment
`of non-infringement on the basis that Allegiant’s Non-Infringement Contentions are
`uncontroverted. In the summary judgment motion, Allegiant’s position will be that claim
`construction is not needed under these circumstances for the Court issue a judgment of non-
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`CASE NO: 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`ALLEGIANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 62 Filed 11/28/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`infringement. But R2 still refuses to stipulate to a judgment of non-infringement and through its
`counsel, R2 also indicated that it will oppose a motion for summary judgment of non-
`infringement. (ECF No. 60-4, at 2.) Accordingly, until Allegiant’s summary judgment motion is
`granted, all deadlines in this case must proceed.
`Allegiant’s primary concern is that R2 is seeking to cancel discovery only temporarily,
`and will attempt to capitalize on that later by requesting a new case schedule for R2 to reverse its
`position about infringement should the Court deny R2’s (baseless) motion to dismiss. Indeed, in
`an email from R2’s counsel about having a meet and confer in advance of filing this Motion, R2
`stated that it “intends to move the court to stay claim construction proceedings…” (ECF No. 60-
`4, at 6.) R2 then asserted that “the best course of action is for the parties to stipulate to cancel
`claim construction proceedings and await the Court’s ruling on R2’s motion to dismiss.” (Id. at
`5-6.) But R2 has not revealed its plans once its motion to dismiss is denied. As this Court has
`found, “[i]f [R2] truly believed no dispute exists, then it would simply agree to the declaratory
`relief [Allegiant] seeks” and “[o]therwise, [R2] should provide [Allegiant] with the needed
`information so this case can proceed.” (Order, ECF No. 52, at 8.) R2 certainly should not be
`allowed to pause the case schedule and then try to use that pause as a justification for creating an
`entirely new case schedule upon denial of its motion to dismiss.1
`On today’s date, pursuant to LPR 1-14, Allegiant is serving its proposed constructions for
`the terms and phrases in its LPR 1-13 listing. Allegiant’s proposed claim constructions are
`consistent with its non-infringement positions set forth in its Non-Infringement Contentions.
`Since R2 states that it is not asserting infringement, it simply can opt to not provide competing
`claim constructions, and then the Court only needs to consider Allegiant’s proposed
`constructions.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For at least the reasons provided above, Allegiant respectfully requests that the Court deny
`
`
`1 Regardless of whether R2’s latest Motion is granted, R2 has now waived any infringement
`assertions and Allegiant will oppose any motion or other attempt by R2 to reverse course.
`
`-3-
`CASE NO: 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`ALLEGIANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 62 Filed 11/28/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`R2’s request to modify the case schedule.
`
`
`Dated: November 28, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`JONES DAY
`
`
`
`
`Patrick Hicks
`
`Nevada State Bar No. 004632
`
`LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
`3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 300
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
`
`
`Tel: (702) 862-8800
`
`
`
`Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
`Email: phicks@littler.com
`
`H. Albert Liou, admitted pro hac vice
`JONES DAY
`717 Texas Ave. Suite 3300
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: (832) 239-3939
`Email: aliou@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Michael A. Oblon
`Michael A. Oblon
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Allegiant Travel Company
`
`Michael A Oblon, admitted pro hac vice
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001.2113
`Tel: (202) 879-3939
`Email: moblon@jonesday.com
`
`Keith Davis, admitted pro hac vice
`JONES DAY
`2727 North Harwood
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (214) 969-4528
`Email: kbdavis@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`CASE NO: 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`ALLEGIANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE
`
`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 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 62 Filed 11/28/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to Rule 5(b) and Section IV of District of Nevada Electronic Filing Procedures, I
`
`certify that a true and correct copy of the MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`BY ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY IN OPPOSITION TO R2 SOLUTIONS LLC’S
`MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE AND CANCEL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`PROCEEDINGS was electronically filed via CM/ECF on November 28, 2022, which constitutes
`service upon the following counsel of record for Defendant:
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`Nelson Bumgardner
`3131 W 7th St., Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`817-806-3814
`Fax: 817-377-3485
`Email: carder@nelbum.com
`
`Christopher G. Granaghan
`Nelson Bumgardner
`3131 W. 7th St., Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`817-377-9111
`Fax: 817-377-3485
`Email: chris@nelbum.com
`
`Brenoch Wirthlin
`Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC
`10080 West Alta Drive
`Suite 200
`Las Vegas, NV 89145
`702-385-2500
`Email: bwirthlin@hutchlegal.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Edward R Nelson , III
`Nelson Bumgardner, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street
`Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`817-377-3489
`Fax: 817-377-3485
`Email: ed@nelbum.com
`
`John Murphy
`Nelson Bumgardner
`3131 W. 7th St., Ste. 300
`Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`817-377-9111
`Fax: 817-377-3485
`Email: murphy@nelbum.com
`
`Joseph R Ganley
`Hutchison & Steffen
`10080 W Alta Dr
`Suite 200
`Las Vegas, NV 89145
`702-385-2500
`Fax: 702-385-2086
`Email: jganley@hutchlegal.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Michael A. Oblon
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Allegiant Travel Company
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`CASE NO: 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`ALLEGIANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY THE CASE SCHEDULE
`
`