A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Litigation

Chief Judge Stark Posts Public Zoom Link for Trial Starting Tuesday [Updated]

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 24, 2020
Litigation COVID-19

Today, Chief Judge Stark posted a public Zoom link for a bench trial starting Tuesday morning:

The bench trial is available to the public by telephone, using dial in: 1−703−552−8058 Code: 944408, or by video, using the following link: https://trialgraphix.zoom.us/j/93843275500, Meeting ID: 938 4327 5500 and Passcode: 974842. Audio or video reproduction of the proceeding is strictly prohibited.

This is a competitor case involving a contract for the delivery of coal—it's the one where the defendant attempted to delay the trial using due process arguments. Trial is scheduled to start Tuesday and run through Friday:

  • Tuesday, August 25: 9 am to 5 pm
  • Wednesday, August 26: 9 am to 5 pm
  • Thursday, August 27: 8:30 am to 10 …
View

Judge Andrews Cites Size of Latham & Watkins in Denying Schedule Extension After Change in Counsel

Andrew E. Russell, Aug. 21, 2020
Litigation Scheduling

Stopwatch
Stopwatch Veri Ivanova, Unsplash

In First Quality Tissue, LLC v. Irving Consumer Products Ltd., C.A. No. 19-428-RGA (D. Del.), defendant swapped its previous counsel, Michael Best, for Latham and Watkins, and sought a twelve-week extension of the schedule.

The parties agreed that some kind of extension was needed regardless of the change in counsel, with numerous pending disputes, 24 noticed depositions, and only 3 days left in discovery. Plaintiff proposed a 4-week extension. Even with four weeks, the parties would likely have to dual-track the depos to get them done in time.

Judge Andrews, however, did not buy the idea that a change in counsel warrants a large schedule extension, and held that the responsibility for …

View

Chief Judge Stark: Don't Use MILs to Bring Summary Judgment Motions in Disguise

David M. Fry, Aug. 5, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

Stealth
Jaroslav Devia, Unsplash

Speaking of MILs, Chief Judge Stark recently denied two motions that were, "in reality, motions for summary judgment" masquerading as MILs. Xcoal Energy & Res. v. Bluestone Energy Sales Corp., C.A. No. 18-819-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2020).

The motions were framed as MILS to exclude evidence on the defendants' "fraud-based claims and defenses" and their claim for lost profits. But they actually sought "judgment on particular claims and defenses[,]" and they didn't even mention the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The judge denied the motions outright, explaining that:

“[M]otions in limine should not be used as disguised motions for summary judgment.” Brown v. Oakland County, 2015 WL 5317194 at *2 (E.D. …
View

Court Posts Public Dial-In for Virtual Bench Trial Starting Today

Andrew E. Russell, July 6, 2020
Virtual Trial Bench Trial

Gavel
Gavel, Bill Oxford, Unsplash

Judge Andrews is holding a virtual bench trial in a contract action today. The Court posted a dial-in for public access:

Remark: The public may access the Bench Trial scheduled to start 7/6/2020 by dialing the following phone number: 571-353-2300, then enter 792973273. The dial-in information provides listening capabilities only. (crb) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

Judge Andrews set forth his reasoning for holding a virtual trial in an order in June:

I had a teleconference with the parties on June 5. I suggested a virtual trial. I did not think it was fair for one side to have lawyers in the courtroom while the other side did not. A virtual trial (by which …
View

Judges Connolly and Burke Hold That Arguments Omitted from Reply Are Conceded

Andrew E. Russell, June 26, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

While we're talking about reply briefs—Judge Connolly this month affirmed Judge Burke's conclusion that a defendant had "abandoned" arguments that it set forth in its opening brief, because the defendant failed to further address those arguments in a reply after receiving pushback in the answering brief.

Here is what Judge Burke said:

In its opening brief, Defendants appeared to challenge these claims on two other grounds . . . . However, after Plaintiff pushed back on these issues in its answering brief, Defendants did not further address the issues in their reply brief. . . . Thus, Defendants have abandoned these arguments and the Court will not further address them herein.

Judge Connolly disagreed that such arguments are …

View

Responding to Opposing Arguments Isn't "Sandbagging"

David M. Fry, June 25, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

As Andrew recently explained, the District of Delaware has a longstanding rule against "sandbagging," or saving arguments for a reply brief that should have been in a full and fair opening brief. But not every new argument is sandbagging.

In f'real Foods, LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., C.A. No. 16-41-CFC (D. Del. June 24, 2020), the defendants opposed a permanent injunction on sale of their commercial blenders by pointing out that the plaintiffs presented no evidence that their blender could meet the technical requirements demanded by one of defendants' customers (Dairy Queen).

In reply, the plaintiffs submitted new evidence and argued for the first time that their blenders could be modified to meet Dairy Queen's …

View

"Sandbagging" and the District of Delaware

Andrew E. Russell, June 3, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

Sandbags
ideadad, Unsplash

In an R&R this week, Magistrate Judge Burke flatly declined to consider a "critical[]" argument raised for the first time in a reply brief:

In their reply brief, Defendants made one other argument, which they failed to raise in their opening brief . . . . (D.I. 37 at 9 (“Critically, neither of these manuals refer to the named defendants in this case[.]”)) Because this argument could have and should have been raised in the opening brief, it has been waived, and so the Court will not consider it here. See McKesson Automation, Inc. v. Swisslog Italia S.p.A., 840 F. Supp. 2d 801, 803 n.2 (D. Del. 2012); LG Display Co., Ltd. …
View

Judge Andrews Rejects Footnote "Incorporating" Eight Pages of Prior Briefing

Andrew E. Russell, May 29, 2020
Litigation Legal Writing

Judge Andrews today rejected a portion of a defendant's objections to an R&R because the defendant set forth its objections in "a footnote, which purport[ed] to include about eight pages of the earlier briefing." Sapp et al v. Industrial Action Services, LLC et al, No. 19-912-RGA, at 10 (D. Del. May 29, 2020) (emphasis added).

He held—perhaps not surprisingly—that this "is an insufficient objection." Id.

That said, he did sustain the same defendant's objections to other portions of Magistrate Judge Burke's R&R, although he called the underlying legal issue a "close call." Id. at 8.

View
Newer

Archive