The Magistrate Judges discussed how they are typically assigned to cases at the same time as the District Judge is assigned; however, the Magistrate Judges are not assigned to a particular District Judge. They noted how some discovery matters are referred to the Magistrate Judges in the Northern District of Texas, but there is a not a uniform referral practice across the different District Judges.

They also emphasized how they enjoy trying cases and would like the opportunity to try more cases by consent. The Magistrate Judges discussed how they can sometimes provide special settings for trial that the District Judges cannot. This may provide more flexibility for the parties. In terms of handling trial, Hon. Jeff Kaplan discussed how he likes to use jury questionnaires because they often provide more meaningful voir dire.

The Magistrate Judges each then discussed some issues of importance to each of them related to the handling of discovery disputes. Some of the highlights were as follows:

• Hon. Cureton: He encourages face-to-face meeting between the parties to try to resolve discovery issues. He also likes to have hearings to resolve discovery disputes.
• Hon. Toliver: She emphasized that the parties need to really conference before filing a discovery motion. She may sometimes require face-to-face meeting between the parties to narrow issues. One of her “pet peeves” is when parties delay filing motions to compel until the end of the discovery period.
• Hon. Ramirez: She criticized the lack of meaningful briefing when presenting discovery disputes, particularly in terms of raising novel issues of law. She emphasized how the parties need to remember who has the burden on a discovery motion.
• Hon. Kaplan: He has a standing order on non-dispositive motions requiring the parties to attempt to informally resolve discovery disputes, such as through a call with the Court. He also requires a meaningful conference, and the parties then have to submit a joint status report setting forth the arguments related to any discovery dispute. He generally rules on the discovery dispute within 24-48 hours after the joint status report is filed, and he believes that his requirements generally reduce the number of discovery disputes raised in his court.
• Hon. Stickney: He echoed the sentiments of the other Magistrate Judges but also encouraged the attorneys to avoid personal attacks on each other.

Thanks to each of the Magistrate Judges for participating in this panel and providing us with insight into the role of the U.S. Magistrate in the Northern District of Texas.

Email this original Klemchuk Kubasta LLP article to your associates.

©2012 Snipe Hunting in the NDTX. All Rights Reserved.

Hon. Jeff Kaplan, U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, participated in a judges panel at the State Bar of Texas 7th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation course in San Antonio on July 14, 2011. Judge Kaplan addressed several subjects of interest:

Patent Pilot Program. Judge Kaplan touched on how the judges of the Northern District are excited about being part of the Patent Pilot Program. The patent docket in the N.D. Texas is steadily increasing, and they hope to see more filings. Judges Linn, Godbey and Kinkeade of the Dallas Division will be part of the Pilot Program, and they hope that the other judges of the Northern District will pass their patent cases to them as they are entitled to do in the Program. Judge Kaplan also anticipates that the judges in the Patent Pilot Program will adhere to the Patent Rules and conduct patent cases in a somewhat uniform manner.

Daubert Challenges. Judge Kaplan noted that Daubert challenges are becoming too common. Attorneys need to be careful about the number and type of points made in Daubert motions. Judge Kaplan described how he now holds a pre-Daubert motion conference to confirm which experts may testify at trial to more effectively narrow the amount and scope of expert testimony and informally examine the possible challenges. Judge Kaplan thinks this pre-Daubert motion conference may cause parties to think twice before filing Daubert motions.

Damages. Judge Kaplan discussed the need for patent trial attorneys to appreciate and master the art of proving damages. He suggested that patent attorneys seek out successful plaintiff’s attorneys for advice on proving damages effectively.

Trial. Judge Kaplan observed that attorneys are often too repetitive at trial.

Summary Judgment. Judge Kaplan noted that the summary judgment record in patent cases is often too long and includes much more than is necessary for the court to fully consider the motion. Do not bury important information in an overly long record – by doing so, parties run the risk of that information not being fully considered or that information may be obscured by less pertinent information.

Thanks to Magistrate Judge Kaplan as well as Hon. Lee Yeakel (Western District of Texas), Hon. Ron Clark (Eastern District of Texas), and Hon. Andrew S. Hanen (Southern District of Texas) for their participation in this interesting panel.

Email this original Klemchuk Kubasta LLP article to your associates.

©2012 Snipe Hunting in the NDTX. All Rights Reserved.

The panel of ND Tex judges will include:

• Chief District Judge Sidney Fitzwater (facilitator)
• District Judge Sam Lindsay
• District Judge Jane Boyle
• Chief Bankruptcy Judge Barbara Houser
• Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan

In addition to the above, other judges and court officials will be in attendance.  The event, cosponsored by the Federal Bar Association and the Dallas Bar Association Judiciary Committee, is free except for the cost of lunch and parking.

Email this original Klemchuk Kubasta LLP article to your associates.

©2012 Snipe Hunting in the NDTX. All Rights Reserved.

Of course, the process now begins for selecting a replacement to fill the large void caused by Magistrate Lane’s retirement.

Email this original Klemchuk Kubasta LLP article to your associates.

©2012 Snipe Hunting in the NDTX. All Rights Reserved.