UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
January 23, 2013
LIFESCAN, INC. AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON, PLAINTIFFS,
SHASTA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, PHARMATECH SOLUTIONS, INC.,
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS CORP. AND CONDUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER DENYING STIPULATION RE: CASE SCHEDULING
The parties have submitted a stipulation and proposed order requesting that the Court set a 18 deadline of January 28, 2013 for Plaintiffs to file responses to Defendants Shasta Technologies, 19 Inc. and Conductive Technologies, Inc.' evidentiary objections to the Declarations of Ty Lee and 20 Erich Joachimsthaler (ECF Nos. 32-33 ("Objections")). See ECF No. 42 ("Stipulation"). January 21 28, 2013 is the due date for Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary 22 Injunction. See ECF No. 41. 23
The Objections were originally filed by Defendants Shasta Technologies, Inc., and Conductive Technologies, Inc. as two separate documents to be considered in connection with 25 those Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See ECF No. 27. 26 Defendants Pharmatech Solutions, Inc. and Decision Diagnostics Corp. filed a separate Opposition. 27
See ECF No. 29. After Defendants filed their Oppositions, the Court ordered that all Defendants 28 file a single consolidated Opposition. See ECF No. 41. Based on the parties' Stipulation, the Court surmises that all Defendants now wish that the Objections be considered in connection with 2 Defendants' recently filed joint Opposition. See ECF No. 49. 3
Local Rule 7-3(b) provides that "[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to [a party's] 4 motion must be contained within the [Opposition] brief or memorandum." Defendants' Objections 5 are not contained in Defendants' joint Opposition but rather are contained in two separately filed 6 documents, which constitute 15 pages of additional unauthorized briefing. Accordingly, the Court 7 disregards Defendants' Objections.*fn1 The parties' Stipulation seeking an order setting a deadline for 8 Plaintiffs' response to the Objections is therefore DENIED. 9
IT IS SO ORDERED.