Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cv-04890_de107> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04890_de107 RegisterActionDate "2012-06-22" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04890_de107 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey Cole:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held and continued to 7/12/2012 at 09:00 AM. Motion hearing and discovery conference held The parties shall file their responses to the pending motions [81,84,86] by 6/29/2012. Replies shall be filed by 7/6/2012. No addition of any time will be added to any scheduled date on the basis that service has been by email. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file validity contentions 95 is granted in part. In the event the plaintiff's motion to strike the invalidity contentions or to compel greater specificity 81 is denied a schedule will be agreed upon (or ordered) that will permit the plaintiff to respond to the invalidity contentions. Plaintiff has represented that in light of our extensive discussions today, it is voluntarily withdrawing the relief requested in its motion to strike so that all that is being requested is greater specificity. Defendant in light of the discussions today and in the spirit of good will is dropping that component of its motion that seeks to strike its infringement contentions so that the motion only seeks relief in the form of an award of attorney fees resulting from the plaintiff's having dropped claims 8, 9, and 11 of its infringement contentions and substituting claims 1,2, and 6. The parties agree that the motions as now amended do not seek dispositive relief and involve only matters that may be "decided" / "determined" by this court under Rule 72(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 USC section 636 (b)(1)(A). The defendant has expressed concern over possible delays tn the progress of the case under the present schedule that is in place. Those concerns must be considered. There is after all a public interest in speedy resolution of legal disputes, Perrian v. O'Grady, 958 F.2d 192, 195 (7th Cir.1992); Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Standard Havens, Inc., 901 F.2d 1373, 1380 (7th Cir.1990). But expedition is not a sufficient reason to deny an otherwise meritorious request for a continuance. As the Supreme Court has observed in another context "attempted presentation of cases without adequate preparation...discredits the bar and obstructs the administration of justice." New York Central R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 279 U.S. 310, 319 (1929).. Finally, the parties shall file with the court the agreed order worked out in court this morning. The court wishes to thank counsel for their willingness to appear today on such short notice and for their cooperation and patience, which have made the court's job infinitely easier. Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 06/22/2012)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04890_de107 AdministrativeID "108" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04890_de107 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04890_de107 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-04890_de80 @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-04890_de107 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-04890_de94 @default.