Here's a new one: A defendant in Natera, Inc. v. ArcherDX, Inc., C.A. No. 20-125-LPS (D. Del.) wanted to delay the trial to coordinate the schedule with another case involving an overlapping patent. So it filed a letter asking for leave to file a 3-page letter briefs, or to have a teleconference:
Given the parties have been unable to agree on an appropriate approach for coordination of both cases, we respectfully request leave to submit the competing views to Your Honor during a status conference or 3-page letter briefs.
Chief Judge Stark denied the request, directing the parties to file a motion instead:
ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' letters . . . relating to [the defendant]'s request for a status conference and/or submission of letter briefs regarding a possible coordinated or consolidated schedule between [the cases], IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that ArcherDX's request is DENIED. Should any party wish to modify an existing schedule and/or seek coordination or consolidation, it may file a motion seeking such relief.
The parties filed a letter requesting a discovery dispute teleconference the next day, in which defendant—apparently undeterred—gently nestled the coordination issue in among a number of unrelated disputes:
The disputes requiring judicial attention are listed below:
[ . . . five other disputes . . . ]
Defendants’ request to extend the discovery deadline and coordinate discovery with the [other] action.
[. . . another dispute . . . ]
Plaintiff wisely dropped a footnote pointing out that the Court had just directed defendants to file a motion, not a discovery dispute, if they want to coordinate the cases.
The next business day, the Court set a briefing schedule for the discovery dispute. Defendant apparently took this to mean that the Court had reversed its view from days prior, and went ahead and filed its three page letter brief seeking to delay trial and coordinate the action.
Plaintiff responded, again protesting that the procedure contradicted the Court's order. The Court agreed:
ORAL ORDER: Having reviewed the materials submitted relating to various discovery disputes (see, e.g., D.I. 224, 225, 226, 228, 229), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (i) Defendants' request for a schedule that coordinates discovery and consolidates trial with later-filed and non-similarly-situated Natera v. Genosity . . . is DENIED; . . . As an initial matter, Defendants have not filed a motion (which could be accompanied by full briefing) as the Court required were Defendants to pursue the relief they now seek through their letter. (See D.I. 220) (denying Defendants' request for status conference and/or submission of letter briefs regarding possible coordinated or consolidated schedule, adding "Should any party wish to modify an existing schedule and/or seek coordination or consolidation, it may file a motion seeking such relief.") . . . .
I definitely wouldn't want to be in the position of having just directly contradicted the Court's order of a few days prior. I'm sure that wasn't the defendant's intent here, but it's where they ended up—most likely because they misread the tea leaves and thought that the Court had reversed its position.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
