Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-CV-1518.
May 25, 1999.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The parties have filed numerous motions recently, most of which revolve around the Plaintiff's misunderstanding of the scope of the Court's March 31 Order. Plaintiff reads that Order to direct expedited discovery on both the jurisdictional issues and the merits of their case, but this view is entirely unsupported both by the Order, which is the only binding manifestation of the Court's instructions, and the Court's recollection of the scheduling conference to which Plaintiff often refers. The Order's plain language allows the parties to conduct discovery on the narrow issue of whether the Court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and personal jurisdiction over Harris Associates. Further, because the issue of whether Doltz signed an employment agreement containing confidentiality and non-compete provisions bears obvious significance to Plaintiff's injunctive requests, the Court authorized the parties to conduct discovery on that explicit issue. Nothing in the Order invited the parties to discover the merits of the case; indeed, the Court hardly would have specified areas of discovery if it intended for the parties to reach the substance of the case. To expedite the Court's resolution of these motions, the Court will hold oral argument on June 1, 1999, at 11 A.M., in Courtroom 8A. At this time, the parties initially should be prepared to present the evidence they have accumulated so far regarding whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction.