Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Steyr Arms Inc v. Beretta USA Corp

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division

January 9, 2019

STEYR ARMS, INC., Plaintiff
v.
BERETTA USA CORP., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on two motions. Defendant Beretta USA Corp. has filed a motion to strike in which Beretta asks the Court (1) to suspend the summary judgment briefing schedule; (2) to strike plaintiff Steyr Arms, Inc.'s memorandum in support of its summary judgment motion because the memorandum does not comply with a court order governing page limits for briefing; and (3) to strike certain portions of a declaration that Steyr filed in support of its summary judgment motion. (Doc. 50). Steyr has filed a Rule 56(d) motion in which Steyr asks for permission to depose Jason Kellogg to enable Steyr to respond to Beretta's summary judgment motion. (Doc. 53). This order resolves both motions.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In its complaint, Steyr asserts a claim of patent infringement against Beretta in connection with United States Letters Patent No. 6, 260, 301 entitled, "Pistol, Whose Housing Is Composed of Plastic." (Doc. 1, ¶ 7). On March 23, 2016, the Court entered an Initial Order which sets the page limits for briefs. (Doc. 12, pp. 5-6). The order states: "Briefs accompanying motions and briefs in opposition to motions should not exceed 25 pages unless the Court grants permission for a party to file a motion that exceeds the Court's page limits." (Doc. 12, pp. 5-6).

         On April 19, 2018, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and claim construction order. (Doc. 40). After a status conference with the parties, the Court ordered as follows:

[T]he parties shall file summary judgment motions regarding patent infringement on or before July 27, 2018. If either party believes it needs discovery to respond to the opposing party's summary judgment motion, then the party seeking discovery shall file a Rule 56(d) affidavit or declaration on or before August 10, 2018. The Court STAYS the remaining deadlines in this matter and stays formal discovery until further notice.

(Doc. 42).

         On July 27, 2018, Steyr filed a motion for summary judgment, a 26-page memorandum in support of the motion (20 pages of which contain substantive content), a 10-page "Statement of Facts" in support of its summary judgment motion, and two declarations. (Docs. 43, 44, 44-1, 44-2, 44-4). The same day, Beretta filed a motion for partial summary judgment, a 33-page memorandum in support of the motion (25 pages of which contain substantive content), and two declarations. (Docs. 45, 46-1, 46-12, 48).

         On August 3, 2018, Beretta filed its motion to strike, (Doc. 50), and on August 10, 2018, Steyr filed its Rule 56(d) motion, (Doc. 53). This Court suspended the summary judgment briefing schedule, pending resolution of Beretta's motion to strike and Steyr's Rule 56(d) motion. (Doc. 56).

         II. ANALYSIS

         a. BERETTA'S MOTION TO STRIKE

         i. Request to Suspend Briefing Schedule

         Beretta asked the Court to suspend the briefing schedule for the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 50, p. 2). On August 15, 2018, this Court entered an order suspending the summary judgment briefing schedule. (Doc. 56). Accordingly, Beretta's motion as it relates to suspension of the briefing schedule is moot.

         ii. Request to Strike Steyr's Summary ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.