Opinion
Case No. 3:03-cv-142.
March 21, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS LEAVE TO DEPOSE INTERMEC
This case is before the Court on Defendants' Motion (Doc. No. 307) renewing its Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 163) of the Magistrate Judge's Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to preclude the deposition of Intermec. Plaintiff opposes the Motion (Doc. No. 311) and the issue was argued orally on March 21, 2006, at Defendants' request (Doc. No. 288).
The Magistrate Judge's protective order was occasioned in part by the fact that the fact discovery period was about to expire at the time the deposition was set and in part by a less-than-complete understanding of the sequence of events which led to the scheduling and re-scheduling of that deposition. Although counsel do not agree on the sequence of events, at least the two parties' variant accounts are now more fully known to the Court. More importantly, the October, 2005, trial date against which the Magistrate Judge was working when the protective order was entered has now been re-set to January, 2007.
The Court understands that Plaintiff's principal opposition to the deposition is its belief that the so-called Swedot prior art should not be permitted to be asserted by Defendants in this case. However, allowing the deposition does not decide that question; it merely permits Defendants to conduct a deposition which they were previously precluded from conducting on grounds which are no longer relied on by the Court. Accordingly, without prejudice to Plaintiff's position on the relevance of the Swedot printers, Defendants will be permitted to depose Intermec under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) on the following conditions:
1. Defendants must notice the deposition and serve the 30(b)(6) subpoena on Intermec and Paxar not later than March 31, 2006.
2. Defendants must conduct the Intermec deposition not later than April 30, 2006. March 21, 2006.