`<font color=green>1:00-cv-00792 Micron v. Rambus
U.S. District Court
District of Delaware (Wilmington)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-00792-KAJ
Thank you msaba for securing this document.
1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
3 - - -
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
4 : CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, :
5 :
v. :
6 :
RAMBUS INC., :
7 :
Defendant. :
8 --------------------------------
RAMBUS INC. :
9 :
Counterclaim Plaintiff, :
10 :
v. :
11 :
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON :
12 ELECTRONICS, INC., and MICRON :
SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., :
13 :
Counterclaim Defendants. : NO. 00-792 (KAJ)
14
- - -
15
Wilmington, Delaware
16 Monday, March 13, 2006
1:00 p.m.
17 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
18 - - -
19 BEFORE: HONORABLE KENT A. JORDAN, U.S.D.C.J.
20 - - -
APPEARANCES:
21
22 RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER
BY: FREDERICK L. COTTRELL, III, ESQ.
23
and
24
25
2
1 APPEARANCES: (Continued)
2
3 WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES
BY: MATTHEW D. POWERS, ESQ.
4 (Menlo Park, California)
5 and
6 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP
BY: WILLIAM C. PRICE, ESQ., and
7 JON R. STEIGER, ESQ.
(Los Angeles, California)
8
Counsel for Micron Technology Inc.
9
10 MORRIS, NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL
BY: MARY B. GRAHAM, ESQ.
11
and
12
SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD, LLP
13 BY: THOMAS K. CAULEY, JR., ESQ.
(Chicago, Illinois)
14
Counsel for Rambus Inc.
15
16
17 - oOo -
18 P R O C E E D I N G S
19
20 (REPORTER'S NOTE: The following telephone
21 conference was held in chambers, beginning at 1:00 p.m.)
22 THE COURT: Hi. This is Judge Jordan. Who do I
23 have on the line?
24 MR. COTTRELL: Your Honor, good afternoon. In
25 Wilmington, for Micron, Fred Cottrell. On the phone with me
3
1 from Weil Gotshal is Matt Powers, and on the phone with me
2 from Quinn Emanuel Bill Price and Jon Steiger.
3 (Counsel respond "Good morning.")
4 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honor, for Rambus, this is
5 Mary Graham in Wilmington. And with me is Tom Cauley from
6 Sidley Austin. He is in the Chicago office.
7 MR. Cauley: Good morning, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Good afternoon out here.
9 We have a couple of things to deal with on this
10 call. One is scheduling. We are going to go ahead and deal
11 with that in the first instance. Then we are going to talk
12 about the Micron versus Rambus case which has been filed in
13 the Eastern District of Virginia.
14 I assume you folks have got the proposed
15 scheduling order in front of you?
16 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Paragraph 1, of course, you folks
18 have agreed, is fine with me.
19 Paragraph 2(a), why don't I go ahead and get
20 your position from Micron, is it Mr. Powers?
21 MR. POWERS: Yes, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: Do you want to tell me about the
23 disagreement you folks have on the total number of hours
24 necessary to take care of the case?
25 MR. POWERS: Yes, Your Honor. The issue has
4
1 evolved a bit. But I think where we are now, Micron has, as
2 you know, suggested for the two phases -- we have already
3 had a discussion at the prior call as to whether we would
4 have one cutoff or two cutoffs. Your Honor ordered two
5 cutoffs for the simple reason that we have a very tight
6 schedule for the first trial, the unclean hands trial. And
7 that's the portion or the phase which has had the least
8 discovery conducted to date. Quite little, actually, has
9 been done on that. And there is quite an amount to do.
10 We talked through that and agreed that because
11 of that, the cutoff for that phase, and then a separate
12 cutoff for the remaining phases, that we would stage the
13 discovery to make sure we can get all the discovery done for
14 Phase 1 and going forward.
15 Now, what we had done was what we thought was
16 sensible, which was a number of hours for each phase, for
17 each cutoff, we thought that made sense. Rambus' proposal
18 appears to be that they want one number of hours for both
19 phases. And this issue, I think, is intertwined, Your
20 Honor, with the question of when depositions can go forward
21 or must go forward. And there the dispute is Rambus has
22 taken the position that if we take the deposition of person
23 X for the first phase, for the unclean hands phase, we have
24 to finish everything we might want to ask that person about
25 with regard to the second phase in that first deposition.
5
1 And the problem we have with that is really
2 twofold. This leads to the hours question. The problem
3 with that is that because of the staging of discovery we may
4 not have the documents for whatever questions we may want to
5 ask that person for the second phase by the time we have to
6 take the deposition in the first phase. So it is not fair
7 to us to make us take the deposition on all counts, on all
8 issues, the first time.
9 And Rambus' argument, I think fairly stated, is
10 they don't want the time of the witnesses abused. And
11 that's, of course, a reasonable concern. And the hours
12 limitations that we have, I think, provide an effective
13 limit on any concern of that, because we will have only a
14 limited number of hours and we will have to take them
15 carefully.
16 Those two issues I think, Your Honor, are
17 intertwined.
18 THE COURT: All right. Who is speaking on this
19 point from Rambus' side?
20 MR. CAULEY: Tom Cauley.
21 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Cauley.
22 MR. CAULEY: My biggest concern with this, Your
23 Honor, is that the discovery that is going to be directed
24 at -- most of the depositions involved in the first phase,
25 the unclean hands phase, will be directed against Rambus
6
1 people. My only concern is that those people will be
2 deposed on issues relevant to that case, then a few months
3 later they will be asked again to give a deposition on other
4 issues.
5 Mr. Powers raised the issue of new documents.
6 That, I understand, that would be a specific, unique
7 situation. What I am talking about is based on the evidence
8 that's out there already, we should offer up people once.
9 It is not my understanding that we have to do the unclean
10 hands phase only during the first part of this and then turn
11 to the other aspects, the other two stages of the trial. I
12 thought they were going to be done concurrently. But there
13 would be more time to do the discovery on the other two
14 phases.
15 It just seems to me to be an abuse of the
16 witness' time to have them show up twice or three times in
17 all instances. I do agree that if there is new evidence or
18 good cause shown that would justify the second deposition
19 relevant to the patent phase or conduct phase, that would be
20 fine.
21 What I am saying is based on the universe of
22 documents and information that is out there, that everybody
23 undertake to depose witnesses only once on everything that
24 is out there.
25 THE COURT: All right. I have got your
7
1 positions.
2 MR. POWERS: Your Honor, may I respond very
3 briefly?
4 THE COURT: Yes.
5 MR. POWERS: The concern we have is that is
6 unraveling the work we did in the prior call, where because
7 of what I just described, in terms of the amount of work
8 that has already been done on the patent phase versus the
9 depositions taken on the first phase and the huge amount of
10 work to get done between now and the first cutoff, if we are
11 going to get that done, that has to be the phase of
12 discovery where we are doing the first phase relating to the
13 first conduct trial. That is from the quote that we sent
14 you in the letter and from the transcript, that is the way
15 it was set up.
16 Now it appears Rambus is saying we are going to
17 do both phases effectively in the first trial, in the
18 first -- discovery for both phases in the first phase, and
19 then discovery again for the next phase. That doesn't make
20 sense. There is not enough time to get that done. That was
21 exactly the concern we wrestled with in the prior call.
22 That's the reason we came up with the structure we have.
23 And all this seems to be moving backward, not forward.
24 MR. CAULEY: Your Honor, can I respond to that?
25 THE COURT: Yes.
8
1 MR. CAULEY: To the extent that a witness, the
2 only information is relevant to the patent or conduct phase,
3 we would agree to put the witness off on the sidelines until
4 we finish discovery on the unclean hands phase, because I do
5 agree there is a lot to do. My only concern is if some
6 witness is relevant to all three phases, I don't think they
7 should be deposed three times. And there has been a lot of
8 discovery on the conduct side and the patent side already.
9 THE COURT: Let me ask you this: You give me
10 your perspective on what Mr. Powers is saying, which is that
11 it's impracticable to take discovery on all the phases and
12 have stuff done by this fall ready to go to trial on the
13 unclean hands issues.
14 MR. CAULEY: First of all, the conduct phase and
15 the patent phase, there has already been a lot of discovery
16 that has been done. I understand that there is supplemental
17 discovery being done. I would agree that if there are
18 things that are unique to those other two phases we can put
19 those off and handle those separately. I do think if you
20 got somebody in the chair across the table like Mr. Karp
21 that you should have to ask all the questions you have,
22 unless there is new evidence or unless good cause is shown
23 as to why you couldn't have asked him those questions.
24 THE COURT: All right. Well, I am sure I have
25 both sides' positions. I am going to rule for Micron in
9
1 this instance. I am not insensitive to the needs of the
2 witnesses. However, it strikes me that having to sit in the
3 witness chair for 14 hours now, or for seven hours now and
4 seven hours later, they might actually be happier not to
5 have the two days together.
6 More to the point, however, the reason this case
7 is being staged is there is at least some prospect that by
8 handling it in phases a later phase or phases may not
9 necessarily be required.
10 So I think it actually may enhance efficiency
11 here if we deal with it in the fashion that Micron has
12 suggested. I say that in the peculiar circumstances of this
13 case. If this were an ordinary case, I think I would be
14 more inclined to agree with you, Mr. Cauley. But this is
15 anything but the ordinary case. There has been a lot of
16 discovery which has already taken place in other cases.
17 There is ongoing litigation still in other jurisdictions.
18 So I have tried to divide this pie up a little bit. And I
19 am going to keep moving ahead with it on that basis.
20 So go with the hundred hours, the Micron
21 position on that.
22 With respect to the discovery cutoff and the
23 things that are laid out in Exhibit A, I appreciate the
24 parties agreeing to that. I think one thing to do that
25 would probably make sense is if we actually turn over to
10
1 Exhibit A. I will give you changes or additions that ought
2 to go on that exhibit. This will pick up other things that
3 we will be talking about later in the order. But since
4 information is gathered there in Exhibit A, we will roll
5 through that for a minute.
6 On the line that says pretrial conference for
7 unclean hands trial, at September 25, 2006, you should add
8 "at 4:30 p.m."
9 On the unclean hands trial date, you should put
10 in parens "Bench trial." And then where it says the date,
11 you should note that beginning at 9:00 a.m. following the
12 dates listed there.
13 Looking over to the second page of Exhibit A,
14 hearing on claim construction and dispositive motions, you
15 should insert "at 9:30 a.m." following the June 22nd date.
16 On the pretrial conference for patent trial, you
17 should insert "at 4:30 p.m." following the October 10 date.
18 And the patent trial date, you should put in
19 parens "jury trial," and then following the November 5 to 16
20 dates, "at 9:30."
21 Looking at the conduct issues, under Sub (c),
22 where it says hearing on dispositive motions on conduct
23 issues, "9:30 a.m." should follow the June 27 date, June 27
24 at 9:30.
25 On the line Pretrial conference for conduct
11
1 trial, it should say October 15 at 4:30 p.m.
2 And the conduct trial date should be followed by
3 "(jury trial)", and following the November 10 to 21 dates
4 "(at 9:30)."
5 Now, there is a reference to Exhibit B in
6 Paragraph 3(c). I don't have an Exhibit B. Can you guys
7 help me with that? It's in the fourth line down, third full
8 line down in 3(c). Micron?
9 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't have it, either.
10 I am not seeing a reference to it.
11 THE COURT: The full sentence --
12 MS. GRAHAM: I think it's in Paragraph 2(c),
13 maybe.
14 THE COURT: I am sorry. My apologies. It is
15 2(c). It says disclosure of expert testimony. Three lines
16 down, it says in Exhibit B.
17 MR. COTTRELL: Your Honor, I think that probably
18 should just be A, not B. I think we included expert cutoff
19 in Exhibit A.
20 THE COURT: There is reference to expert
21 discovery cutoff. It's Section -- maybe this is it. It's
22 Section B of Exhibit A. So let's just, we will all know
23 what we are talking about here, call that Exhibit A. Fix
24 that.
25 MR. COTTRELL: Yes.
12
1 THE COURT: The July 31 date that is also in
2 there is fine.
3 Paragraph 3, we will have the interim status
4 report due on June 7, 2006, and the status conference in
5 Paragraph 4 will be on June 14, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
6 The tutorial, the date you have suggested of
7 September 15 is fine. We will do that at 9:30. That is in
8 Paragraph 5.
9 The date of April 6 in Paragraph 7 is fine with
10 me.
11 The claim construction hearing, as I noted in
12 Paragraph 9 and reflected in Exhibit A, is fine. So is
13 Paragraph 10.
14 Looking over to Paragraph 13, there is a
15 statement here at the conclusion of the first paragraph of
16 Paragraph 13 that says, issues of damages and willfulness
17 will be tried if necessary after a verdict has been rendered
18 on liability issues presented in the conduct phase of the
19 trial. I am a little nonplussed by this, because it almost
20 makes it sound like there is something -- did you mean
21 something other than the patent issues when you separated
22 this out as damages and willfulness?
23 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honor, if I might. We did
24 disagree with that line in there. Rambus does not agree to
25 that. We submitted a letter where we said that we think
13
1 that damages -- which I assume is the patent damages -- goes
2 with the patent trial and willfulness, we feel, should go
3 with the conduct trial, should be in the conduct trial. And
4 there should not be a fourth trial. That was not
5 contemplated when we addressed scheduling.
6 THE COURT: Are you waiving any right to jury
7 with respect to willfulness and suggesting that that be
8 tried with the unclean hands case?
9 MS. GRAHAM: I am not sure. I would have to
10 defer to Mr. Cauley as to what our position is with respect
11 to jury. I am not sure, frankly, when Your Honor indicated
12 a jury trial for the third trial, whether we have taken a
13 position on that or not.
14 THE COURT: Well, when you say -- I apologize, I
15 am getting unclean hands and conduct confused there. So my
16 apologies. You are suggesting that willfulness be tried
17 during the conduct phase. That's Phase 3.
18 MS. GRAHAM: Right.
19 THE COURT: Sorry about that. All right. But
20 you oppose the damages being split out from the patent
21 trial. Is that right?
22 MS. GRAHAM: Right. As our letter indicated, in
23 Henix, Judge White is trying the damages with the patent
24 phase. And we think that makes sense.
25 THE COURT: All right. Who is speaking on this
14
1 for Micron?
2 MR. POWERS: Your Honor, we are a little
3 surprised they are objecting now because this has been in
4 prior versions and unobjected to. But putting that aside,
5 for the reasons we are splitting up other phases, we think
6 putting damages and the willfulness in the patent phase,
7 putting damages, I guess their proposal was putting damages
8 in the patent phase and willfulness in the conduct phase, we
9 think that doesn't make sense, conduct doesn't really go
10 with the damages and willfulness does go together and
11 logically should be tried together, but not logically before
12 you have an actual verdict that could be enforced.
13 That really can't happen until after the conduct
14 phase, because the conduct phase is in many ways -- in some
15 ways defenses to what is being tried in the patent phase,
16 and in the end could prevent them from recovering anything.
17 THE COURT: Indeed, it could. But, you know
18 what? We are going to do damage and willfulness together
19 and it is part of the patent case. We are not having what
20 in effect is a Phase 4. If the resulting verdict from the
21 patent phase is essentially thrown out because of what
22 Micron is able to achieve in the conduct phase, then that
23 will be that, and I will be counting on the parties to make
24 sure that the way we craft these issues for these different
25 phases is such that we are not going to have to deal with
15
1 inconsistent verdicts in the sense that they can't be
2 reconciled and understood how they fit together.
3 But the question of whether there is
4 infringement and if there is infringement what the damages
5 would be, and whether those damages would be subject to some
6 sort of enhancement because of willfulness, doesn't need to
7 wait to be addressed in the conduct of the anticompetitive
8 conduct issues that you want to bring to trial. That
9 sentence is going to get taken out, please.
10 All right. Otherwise, with those changes and
11 amendments to the order, we are ready to go ahead and get
12 this thing signed.
13 Mr. Cottrell, could you take the laboring oar in
14 getting that finalized and run it past opposing counsel and
15 send it over to me, please? Are you still there?
16 MR. COTTRELL: Yes, Your Honor, that is fine.
17 THE COURT: Thanks.
18 Now, let's turn to the questions that are raised
19 by Micron's having filed suit in the Eastern District of
20 Virginia and the motion to enjoin that suit which has been
21 filed by Rambus and the motion to expedite consideration of
22 that motion to enjoin which has been filed by Rambus. I
23 will go ahead and give you the ball first here, Mr. Cauley.
24 I presume you are speaking on behalf of Rambus.
25 MR. CAULEY: I am. Are we talking about the
16
1 scheduling, the motion to expedite, Your Honor, at this
2 point?
3 THE COURT: We are.
4 MR. CAULEY: As our papers indicate, Micron,
5 which is the plaintiff in this case, has run off and filed
6 another action against Rambus in another federal court based
7 on the very same allegations that will be the subject of the
8 upcoming unclean hands trial in October. They filed that
9 second action in the rocket docket in Virginia. And things
10 are going to go incredibly quickly there.
11 Our view is, as we set fourth in our motion,
12 that this will be an incredible waste of Court assets and
13 Rambus' assets as discovery and litigation on the same
14 issues move forward in two different federal courts.
15 And we sent a letter to Your Honor this morning,
16 because there wasn't clarity last week as to how well things
17 would move in Virginia, we sent that this morning since we
18 had some clarity.
19 THE COURT: I read it.
20 MR. CAULEY: There is a Rule 16 pretrial
21 conference on March 23. The Sidley lawyer who is going to
22 be the lead lawyer on that is on vacation that day. We
23 asked Micron to postpone it for a week. They would not
24 agree to do that. They will agree to bring it forward to an
25 earlier time. That is just not going to work for us. So we
17
1 intend to approach the Court on trying to get the March 23
2 Rule 16 conference put off for at least a week.
3 Given that that March 23 date is out there,
4 under the standard scheduling order for Virginia, that
5 requires that the Rule 26 conference already have occurred.
6 It hasn't occurred. Micron has been pushing for that. The
7 parties are going to have to agree on a scheduling order to
8 be presented to the Court on March 23rd unless that date is
9 moved.
10 Under the order we attached to the letter to the
11 Court, the standard scheduling order, you could have trial
12 on this case in 60 to 90 days absent extraordinary
13 circumstances. So things will be moving incredibly quickly
14 and Rambus will be embroiled in the same discovery and
15 facing the same pretrial and discovery issues in two
16 different federal courts at the same time.
17 As Mr. Powers said, there is a lot of discovery
18 to be taken and the parties are going to be absorbed in
19 handling this one case. Now we have got two. We think it's
20 an incredible waste of time, duplication of effort, and is
21 really unfair to the Court system to have this motion filed.
22 THE COURT: Let me ask you, when you say motion,
23 I know you mean case, but let me ask you to be precise about
24 when you say expedited consideration. You filed your
25 motion. In the ordinary course when would the other side's
18
1 brief be due?
2 MR. CAULEY: Tomorrow.
3 THE COURT: In the ordinary course, when would
4 your reply be due? A week from that. Right?
5 MR. CAULEY: I am not sure. I am in a position
6 to offer to respond in one day. If we got their brief to
7 them at noon, we could turn that around hopefully by
8 Wednesday.
9 THE COURT: Okay. So when you say expedited
10 consideration, at this point, you are not seeking to
11 foreshorten any time frame of theirs. What you are really
12 saying is, Judge, we really want you to turn to this
13 quickly, please. Have I got you right?
14 MR. CAULEY: Exactly. If we could get them to
15 file their brief, which is due tomorrow at noon as opposed
16 to midnight, we could turn it around in one day. But at
17 this point, I guess, we are not asking you to shorten the
18 time they have to file the response brief, because it is due
19 tomorrow.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Powers.
21 MR. POWERS: Yes, Your Honor. As we said in the
22 document that we filed, we think that this motion is highly
23 intertwined conceptually with Rambus' transfer motion. And
24 it makes sense for the Court to consider those all at the
25 same time in a single hearing, and we are happy to do that
19
1 under whatever schedule the Court wishes. But they are
2 highly related. The basic question is, where should various
3 claims of the parties be heard. And there are disputes
4 about basically all of the claims at issue on that question.
5 As to the claim -- I won't go through and argue
6 the ultimate motion, because I think that's for another day.
7 But the issue here is whether the claim that was brought
8 before Judge Payne, which relates in large part to issues
9 that Judge Payne personally saw and heard, i.e., the false
10 testimony that was given by Rambus witnesses in his court.
11 THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this, Mr.
12 Powers: Do you agree or disagree that there is a whole heck
13 of a lot of overlap between what you have framed as a RICO
14 complaint now in the Eastern District and the unclean hands
15 case, which we are ramping up to try in October?
16 MR. POWERS: There is no doubt there is factual
17 overlap in not only those cases but also the cases Rambus
18 has filed out in California, the patent cases. There is
19 overlapping factual issues there, too. So there is
20 overlapping factual questions all over the place.
21 The claims themselves are obviously different
22 and they have different requirements, some additional
23 requirements in one case and lesser requirements in another.
24 But it is worth noting that the overlap that
25 Rambus relies on is overlap which, when we get to actual
20
1 consideration of the questions before Your Honor, Rambus
2 will, if it is true to its prior history, be arguing should
3 not be overlap at all. They will argue to you, as they have
4 argued to Judge White in the Henix case, I suspect, that you
5 should not consider any of the evidence of what happened in
6 Virginia.
7 Our concern is, we don't want to have that cut
8 us both ways. It can't both be the basis for saying the
9 Virginia case can't go forward and the basis for saying we
10 can't rely upon that conduct in your case, either. That's
11 why we filed the case in Virginia, where Judge Payne, who
12 observed the conduct and clearly it relates to him, is in a
13 far -- very, very good position to assess the credibility of
14 the witnesses who are going to come and try to explain their
15 prior false testimony to him because he was there and
16 observed it. And there is no argument, at least in that
17 argument, that it is irrelevant in that Court.
18 Rambus has and will make the argument that what
19 happened in that court is not relevant to what is being
20 tried in your Court. They can't play that one both ways.
21 THE COURT: One might be tempted to go so far as
22 to say be in a far better position, I guess.
23 Well, why don't I hear from you, Mr. Cauley,
24 with any response you might have?
25 MR. CAULEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
21
1 This is not a venue issue. This is a motion to
2 enjoin. There is longstanding Third Circuit cases that talk
3 about a party not being required to defend itself in two
4 different federal courts on claims arising out of the same
5 allegation. That is the Crosby case. That is precisely
6 what we have here.
7 This is a classic case of claim splitting.
8 There is not just some overlap, although that is all that is
9 needed to have the Court handle the first-filed case with
10 some overlap, this is total overlap. If you look at
11 Micron's response to our interrogatory to them as to what
12 they intend to prove in the unclean hands trial and look at
13 the complaint that was filed in Virginia, there is complete
14 overlap. The Third Circuit said it doesn't matter whether
15 there is a different legal theory. What you look to is the
16 factual underpinnings and issues to be resolved, the
17 ownership of patents, development of litigation strategy,
18 the so-called shred base, the false testimony, a complete
19 overlap.
20 Their case down there is the same case that is
21 scheduled to be tried here. The Third Circuit is very clear
22 on this. If this was an issue of venue, the proper
23 procedural thing to do was to file a motion to add that
24 claim, the RICO claim, to this case and file a 1404(a)
25 motion, as we have done, to try to get transfer to Virginia.
22
1 But this is not the way you go about handling a venue issue.
2 MR. POWERS: May I respond briefly?
3 THE COURT: Sure.
4 MR. POWERS: This is an argument on the merits.
5 That should wait until you have received our brief on the
6 question.
7 But the law is not that when there is an overlap
8 you are required to enjoin the second case. The law is that
9 is within the discretion of the courts. And there is a lot
10 of factors that inform that.
11 THE COURT: Let me interrupt you, Mr. Powers. I
12 agree. Now we are on the merits and I don't need you to
13 argue the merits of the motion to me.
14 Well, the motion to expedite is denied to the
15 extent it is seeking to foreshorten the briefing schedule.
16 I will look forward to getting Micron's brief tomorrow under
17 the Local Rule schedule. That is when it is due and that is
18 when I expect to get it. You have up to a week to file your
19 response, on the Rambus side. If you choose to file it
20 sooner than that, that is okay by me.
21 I will instruct my staff to look for an early
22 date to address this issue. It may well be that this is
23 intertwined with the venue issue, and you have me at a
24 disadvantage. I don't know if that is fully briefed at this
25 stage or not. Is it?
23
1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It is not.
2 THE COURT: When will that be done?
3 MR. COTTRELL: I believe Micron's answering
4 brief by stipulation is due Wednesday. Then Rambus has
5 until I believe the end of the month for a reply.
6 MS. GRAHAM: I think that's right. We could
7 certainly shorten that brief way up in order to get the
8 earliest possible hearing date that we could if the Court
9 wanted to hear both motions at the same time.
10 THE COURT: Well, I think I will hear them both
11 at the same time. So it is sort of on you folks on the
12 Rambus side, it sounds like, to decide how fast you can get
13 that venue issue wrapped up in briefing with your reply
14 brief. Then when you contact chambers, we will find some
15 time to hear your argument and try to get those matters
16 addressed promptly.
17 So I will ask you to follow up with a phone
18 call, and be reasonable with each other in coordinating your
19 schedules and then in giving attention over here to our
20 chambers calendar so we can try to get this on as quickly as
21 is practicable.
22 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honor, will that be a hearing
23 in court?
24 THE COURT: It sure will. And I would call it
25 an argument, not a hearing, because I don't intend to take
24
1 evidence. But I will be hearing what both sides have to say
2 on both the issues that you have teed up through these two
3 motions. Okay?
4 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honor, if it is all right with
5 the Court, I will consult with Mr. Cauley after the call to
6 see how quickly we can do our reply brief. But I would plan
7 to call the Court office immediately to try to get a date.
8 THE COURT: I am suggesting you don't just speak
9 to Mr. Cauley. You speak to Mr. Powers and Mr. Cottrell. I
10 am looking for the parties to sort of do what they can to
11 make sure everybody is available. But if somebody is being
12 recalcitrant, then let me know what your competing views
13 are. And what I am telling you is, you guys get your
14 briefing wrapped up and I am prepared to try to make room in
15 the calendar and get you in for argument. Okay?
16 MS. GRAHAM: We will consult today.
17 (Counsel respond "Thank you.")
18 (Teleconference concluded at 1:40 p.m.)
19 - - -
20 Reporter: Kevin Maurer
21
22
23
24
25
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
