Intellectual Property | Copyright Infringement | Technology | Software

Sample Joint Case Management Statement Northern District California

May 15th, 2016 | By | Category: Litigation Warrior

Attorney Steve Litigation Warrior – Initial Case Documents (Federal Court)

Sample Jt Case management statement Northern District


This is a sample of what a case mgmt. statement looks like.  When you are in federal court in Northern District of California (ex. counties such as Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma), early on the parties will normally be required to “meet and confer” and come up with a schedule for the case.  Here is a sample document that can give you some general guidance on what the document should look like.  Always be sure to check your local rules, and judges rules for any particular issues that must be addressed.  This is general information only.  The WORD version is available at our online store below.

Sample Case Management Statement Northern Cal District Court

The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California dated July 1, 2011 and Civil Local Rule 16-9.

  1. Jurisdiction & Service

Defendant has been served, but still contests personal jurisdiction and venue in this Court.

  1. Facts

Plaintiff admits Defendant is a paying customer of their company and has licensed many products over the years.  Now, however, based on the testimony of a disgruntled ex-employee who was constantly financially strapped, Plaintiff claims defendant has illegally downloaded their software, which Defendant denies, and which the informant is responsible for as he seeks retaliation against his ex-employer.

  1. Legal Issues

Whether Defendant can be held liable for infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights when the “secret informant” is responsible for fabricating evidence of infringement?

  1. Motions 

Defendant anticipates filing an appeal at a future date of the Court’s decision to exercise personal jurisdiction. Defendant also anticipates a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgement.  A motion to compel discovery and motion in limine may also be required.

     5.   Amendment of Pleadings

Defendant does not anticipate amending the pleadings at this time.  The right to file cross-suits and countersuits are hereby reserved.

  1. Evidence Preservation

A brief report certifying that the parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI Guidelines”), and confirming that the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action. See ESI Guidelines 2.01 and 2.02, and Checklist for ESI Meet and Confer.

  1.  Disclosures

Whether there has been full and timely compliance with the initial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and a description of the disclosures made.   The parties have met and conferred and agree to exchange disclosures on or before June 13th, 2017.

  1. Discovery

Discovery taken to date, if any, the scope of anticipated discovery, any proposed limitations or modifications of the discovery rules, a brief report on whether the parties have considered entering into a stipulated e-discovery order, a proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), and any identified discovery disputes.  Defendant agrees to check possible dates of availability for depositions without waiving any requirements of the FRCP agree to try to work out mutually acceptable deposition schedules.

  1.  Class Actions

Not applicable.  At this time the case is not anticipated to be converted into a software class action lawsuit.

  1. Related Cases

A defamation lawsuit (libel and slander) and corporate sabotage, and other causes of action may be raised against the “secret informant” in based upon violations of international copyright law.

  1. Relief

All relief sought through complaint or counterclaim, including the amount of any damages sought and a description of the bases on which damages are calculated. In addition, any party from whom damages are sought must describe the bases on which it contends damages should be calculated if liability is established.  In this case, Defendant will be seeking their costs and attorney fees from Plaintiff and/or other third parties. In addition, Defendant plans to file a countersuit for breach of one or more of the licensing agreements – EULA (once the scope of each is ascertained through discovery) which Plaintiff admits were purchased.

  1.  Settlement and ADR

Prospects for settlement, ADR efforts to date, and a specific ADR plan for the case, including compliance with ADR L.R. 3-5 and a description of key discovery or motions necessary to position the parties to negotiate a resolution.

Defendant has gone above and beyond presenting a settlement offer, disputing all claims, but in a good faith effort to try to resolve this matter.  Plaintiff, however, continues to seek unwarranted and outrageous monetary damages for what they perceive to be willful copyright infringement by Defendant, without investigating the full extent of the facts, or vetting the witness they rely on, and the reality of malicious corporate sabotage by the informant.  Defendants may agree to a phone or video mediation depending upon the time and date of such.

  1.  Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes

Whether all parties will consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment.   Defendant and Plaintiff agree to the jurisdiction of the magistrate.

  1. Other References

Defendant does not believe this matter would be benefitted by binding arbitration.

  1. Narrowing of Issues

Issues that can be narrowed by agreement or by motion, suggestions to expedite the presentation of evidence at trial (e.g., through summaries or stipulated facts), and any request to bifurcate issues, claims, or defenses.

Defendant has invited and welcomed Plaintiff to search their existing computers, laptops, servers and other computer equipment looking for what they believe is the evidence of copyright infringement but  Plaintiff has in bad faith refused this, apparently due to the travel costs, forensic expert costs, fear of being wrong funding they will be subject to a claim for malicious prosecution, or in the malicious need to try to force Defendants – a Texas company – into the Northern District Court in California (while suing its own admitted paying customers).

  1.  Expedited Trial Procedure

Whether this is the type of case that can be handled under the Expedited Trial Procedure of General Order 64, Attachment A.  If all parties agree, they shall instead of this Statement, file an executed Agreement for Expedited Trial and a Joint Expedited Case Management Statement, in accordance with General Order No. 64, Attachments B and D.

Defendant cannot agree to expedited trial procedures at this time.

  1.  Scheduling

Proposed dates for designation of experts, discovery cutoff, hearing of dispositive motions, pretrial conference and trial are as follows:

Event Proposed Date
Deadline to file motion or stipulation seeking amendment of pleadings Monday, December 12, 2017
Fact Discovery Cut-off (all discovery responses must be due and served by this date) Tuesday, January 10, 2018
Last day for hearing on fact (non-expert) discovery motions Friday, March 10, 2018
Initial Expert Disclosures Wednesday, December 21, 2017
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Friday, January 20, 2018
Expert Discovery Cut-off Friday, March 10, 2018
Last day for hearing on expert discovery motions Monday, May 1, 2018
Last day for hearing on non-discovery motions, including summary judgment or other dispositive motions Thursday, April 20, 2018
Motions in limine filing deadline (hearing on motions to be held at Final Pretrial Conference or sooner) Friday, May 19, 2018
Final Pretrial Conference Thursday, May 25, 2018
Trial Monday, June 19, 2018
  1.  Trial

Whether the case will be tried to a jury or to the court and the expected length of the trial.  Case will be tried to a jury, and Defendant expects a 10 day trial.

  1.  Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons

Whether each party has filed the “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” required by Civil Local Rule 3-15. In addition, each party must restate in the case management statement the contents of its certification by identifying any persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities known by the party to have either:

(i) a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding;


(ii) any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

  1. Professional Conduct

Whether all attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California.   The Parties have reviewed the guidelines and agree to follow them.

  1. Other

Such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of this matter.  Defendant notes nothing at this time.




Plaintiff / Counsel for Plaintiff
Defendant / Counsel for Defendant



Sample Motion with Order – Word Version (Purchase a Copy) that can be edited for your case

If you need to pick up a neater editable version try this.  You can use this in most any type of case that ends up in federal court, for example a right of publicity case, software audit dispute, copyright infringement matter, DMCA, financial elder abuse, trademark lawsuit, or even a breach of contract case.

Sample Joint Case Management Statement Northern Disttrict Court by Steve Vondran



The following two tabs change content below.
We are a business and civil litigation firm with a focus on copyright infringement cases involving illegal movie downloads (torrent cases such as London Has Fallen, ME2 Productions and Malibu Media defense), software audits (ex. Microsoft audits, SPLA, Autodesk audit notification letter, Siemens PLM defense, SIIA, Adobe and Business Software Alliance defense) and other software vendors threatening piracy and infringement. We also handle cases involving internet law, anti-SLAPP, media law, right of publicity, trademarks & domain name infringement, and we have a niche practice area handling California BRE licensing disputes, accusations, subpoena response, statement of issues and investigations. We have offices in San Francisco, Beverly Hills, Newport Beach, San Diego & Phoenix, Arizona and accept federal copyright and trademark cases nationwide. All content on our website is general legal information only and not a substitute for legal advice, and should not be relied upon. Decisions to hire counsel should not be based on advertising alone. Blogs, videos and podcasts are authored by Steve Vondran, Esq. unless otherwise noted. We can be reached at (877) 276-5084.

Latest posts by Vondran Legal - Civil Litigation firm handling Software audits, Copyright Infringement, Internet law, and general Business & Real Estate law (see all)

Comments are closed.