Caterpillar, Inc. v. Pan World Brands Limited

Full title: CATERPILLAR, INC., Plaintiff, v. PAN WORLD BRANDS LIMITED, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division

Date published: Dec 20, 2005

Case No. 05-CV-1385 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. 05-CV-1385.

December 20, 2005

OPINION

BYRON CUDMORE, Magistrate Judge

Telephonic conference held with counsel for Plaintiff, Caterpillar, Inc., Mary E. Innis, Edward G. Wierzbicki, Roy Crozier, and Timothy L. Bertschy, and counsel for Defendant, Pan World Brands Limited, Keith J. Braskich, David G. Lubben, Rick Russo, Michael Block, and Andrew Mold, concerning the Court's Order Expediting Discovery [13]. Counsel for Defendant, David G. Lubben, Keith J. Braskich, and Rick Russo directed to enter their appearance herein.

The Court is provided with background information on litigation between the parties in London, England. The litigation in London, England has been ongoing since at least October 11, 2005. The Court was also advised of litigation filed by Defendant herein in Delaware on October 12, 2005. The Court is very disappointed that Plaintiff failed to bring to the Court's attention in their Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery [9] and Memorandum in support thereof [10] the facts pertaining to the pending litigation in London. The Court is also disappointed that some of the facts pertaining to the parties' settlement/mediation discussions that were held in November and December of 2005, were not included in Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery [9]. These omitted facts should have been included by Plaintiff to allow the Court to properly rule on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery [9].

Based upon the above, the following is ordered:

1) The Court hereby stays the Order Expediting Discovery [13] pending further order of Court;

2) Defendant is directed to file a written response concerning Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery [9] on or before December 29, 2005. The status of the litigation in London, England should be included in Defendant's response;

3) The parties are directed to meet and confer and discuss a proposed protective order for the instant litigation and tender same to the Court, or file a status report on the issue, on or before December 29, 2005;

4) The parties are directed to meet and confer and discuss the Defendant's desire to seal various aspects of the instant litigation, keeping in mind the Court's concern that the public policy is all litigation is presumed to be open to public scrutiny. A status report on this issue is directed to be filed by December 29, 2005;

5) The parties are also directed to meet and confer concerning Plaintiff's requested expedited discovery requests, the six points, and see if any agreed middle ground can be reached. A status report on this issue is directed to be filed by December 29, 2005.

Upon receipt of Defendant's responses due December 29, 2005, the Court may direct Plaintiff to reply, the Court may rule based upon the submitted materials, or a telephonic conference may be scheduled.