Judge: Enough With the Numbered Pleading Paper, Already?! 'This is the 21st Century'
The Northern District judge's standing order discourages the use of formal pleading paper. Two IP lawyers recently took him up on it.
October 19, 2018 at 05:44 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria was in a sunny mood when cloud communication companies Telesign and Twilio Inc. squared off in a patent eligibility dispute last September.
“I'm generally not a big fan of patent cases,” Chhabria said, but “I found myself really enjoying reading the briefs. Can anybody guess why?”
“I assume it's because we've learned to write very well, and it reads like a novel,” Twilio attorney Wayne Stacy offered, to laughter in the courtroom.
The briefs were really good, Chhabria said, though that wasn't the reason he enjoyed reading them. Instead, it was because Stacy, a partner at Baker Botts, and Telesign counsel Jesse Camacho of Shook, Hardy & Bacon had filed them on plain paper—not the traditional lined and numbered pleading paper.
Chhabria recently declared his preference for plain paper in his civil standing order, and Stacy and Camacho were the first to take him up on it.
“I mean, this is the 21st century. I don't understand why our court still requires briefs to be filed on pleading paper,” Chhabria said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 hearing. In his 19-year career as a judge, lawyer and law clerk, “never once did I identify an instance in which pleading paper was helpful,” Chhabria said. Rather, it “clutters the page, it makes the brief or the order more difficult to read.”
The judge asked the two lawyers if they've ever found pleading paper helpful.
“Not once,” Stacy answered.
Camacho hedged slightly. “The only time is if I wanted to pinpoint a specific line to aid the court,” he said.
But how hard is it to say “look at the second full paragraph of page 3, third line down?” Chhabria asked.
“It's not,” Camacho quickly agreed.
Stacy said this week that pleading paper is no big deal for large law firms like his that have data processing departments. But for a smaller firm or a solo, finding and complying with the right template “can be a big headache” and end up costing a client money. Some other courts he's appeared in have moved on beyond pleading paper, he said.
As for the hearing before Chhabria, Stacy had two takeaways: “Read the standing order, and try to make things easier for people.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFirst Came the SEC, Now Investors Raise Allegations Against Acadia Healthcare
4 minute readState Appellate Court Denies Hospital's Request to Move Med Mal Suit From Chicago
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250