Since the Court's announcement of the current vacant judgeship program, there have been some lingering questions about what a magistrate judge in a vacant judgeship case can and cannot decide.
We got some insight on that question yesterday in Huber Engineered Woods LLC v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, C.A. No. 19-342-VAC-SRF (D. Del.). The referral order in that case is typical of VAC cases—it says that the magistrate judge can resolve only a limited scope of disputes:
this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon solely for the following purposes: (1) to adjudicate discovery (including fact and expert discovery) and protective order disputes; (2) to issue or modify a scheduling order; (3) to review stipulated orders and pro hac vice motions; and (4) to review requests for mediation in cases other than patent and securities cases.
Defendants filed a motion to strike untimely infringement contentions. The Court quickly held that a motion to strike infringement contentions is outside the scope of the magistrate judge referral:
ORAL ORDER re D.I. 399 Motion to Strike: In accordance with the Court's April 7, 2022 Oral Order and paragraph 3(d) of Standing Order No. 2022-3, the pending motion to strike untimely infringement contentions (D.I. 399) does not fall within the scope of the referral to the undersigned judicial officer. Therefore, the motion will be addressed following the assignment of an Article III Judge. Pursuant to paragraph 3(g) of Standing Order 2022-3, the pending motion shall not be grounds to prevent the case from progressing and briefing shall be completed in accordance with the procedures in the Scheduling Order originally entered on October 4, 2019 (D.I. 17) as applicable, or, in accordance with the Local Rules. Ordered by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 5/31/2022.
A motion to strike untimely infringement contentions is at least arguably a "discovery . . . dispute," in that it is a dispute about discovery (the infringement contentions), although it was not brought using the Court's discovery dispute procedures. This is a useful data point showing that the Court is interpreting these referrals somewhat narrowly.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
