Judge Williams issued an interesting opinion yesterday on a motion to strike.
The issue in Cisco Systems, Inc. et al v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd., C.A. No. 21-1365-GBW (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2025) was the form of the briefing. The case had previously been assigned to Judge Stark, before passing to the vacant judgeship, then Judge Burke. The parties' scheduling order thus followed judge Burke's form order which contained a specific letter briefing procedure for motions to strike with 3-page opening, a 5 page answering and 2-page reply briefs. When the case was reassigned to Judge Williams, the parties kept the old scheduling order.
The parties ultimately raised the motion to strike through Judge Williams' dispute procedures. He issued an oral order that allowed for only 3-page opening and answering briefs without reference to the procedures in the scheduling order:
Having reviewed the parties' joint letter requesting a discovery teleconference (D.I. 146), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 10, 2024, any party seeking relief shall file with the Court a letter, not to exceed three (3) pages, outlining the issues in dispute, its position on those issues, and supporting authority for its position(s). By no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 12, 2024, any party opposing the request for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three (3) pages, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition and supporting authority.
The movant (Plaintiff) filed a 3 page letter (the correct procedure under either the scheduling order the later oral order). The defendant, however, filed a 5-page answering brief -- allowed under the scheduling order but exceeding the limit set in the oral order.
Judge Williams thus declined to consider any of the argument after page 3 of the brief:
While the Operative Scheduling Order sets default page limits for motions to strike, the parties were both instructed to submit letter briefs not exceeding three pages. Cisco complied with that instruction. Ramot did not. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion and give no weight to the text beyond page three of Ramot's brief.
Id. at 2 n.2 (internal citations omitted).
