These are papers filed in opposition to a second motion for a stay filed by certain defendants, whose previous motion filed about one year ago was denied by the court last fall. The facts of this patent infringement case are set out in the related documents. This is from the preliminary statement:
The motion should be denied because defendants’ conduct in this litigation has not been in the spirit of the Court’s invitation to the parties to agree to a program whereby duplicative discovery would be avoided, but, rather, has been nothing but a shell game by which defendants have produced virtually nothing;
because the motion is premised on the Court pre-deciding not one but two pending substantive motions; and because if this case does not already embody the maxim of “justice delayed is justice
denied,” the relief sought by defendants would assuredly bridge that gap and make it so.
This is “only” defendants’ second motion for a stay, but in fact it is merely their latest procedural device for extending the stay they have awarded themselves or cajoled from the Court
for over a year. Including the period from when Mr. Tropp’s discovery demands were served until the date hereof . . . . defendants have managed to file hundreds of pages in motion practice, but have not produced a single page of documents in response to Mr. Tropp’s document demands. . . .
"Enough is enough! . . . Defendants’ 'new' grounds for this motion are unavailing. Their arrogant assertion that this time—this time!—the pending motion for summary judgment is, this time, a sure winner is of course reminiscent of their previous prediction that they would prevail on the then-pending Markman motion [in the related case]. The Court should give it no credit, except to the extent of weighing defendants’ track record at 'calling the shot' and appropriately discounting such predictions to a value of zero."
The Court agreed, denying the motion in a Memorandum and Order on June 15, 2010.