Opinion
No. 00 C 7340
August 28, 2002
Defendant Gamco has moved for consolidation of third party discovery in two related patent infringement actions for the purpose of preventing overlapping depositions. Plaintiff Douglas Press opposes this consolidation, arguing that Cameo has oversimplified the differences between these three cases.
However, upon reviewing the complaints and Markman briefs for all three lawsuits, it appears that the arguments relating to patent number 5,046,737 ("737 patent") are essentially identical. Because of this similarity, Gamco asserts that third party discovery relating to the 737 patent for all three cases will seriously overlap. For example, Gamco asks that its employee, Emile Bourgoyne, be treated as a third party witness in this case, since he is a third party witness with respect to the other two cases, and that his deposition be consolidated. Also, a defendant in one of the other two cases has insisted that it will produce a third party witness only once, even though this witness will need to be deposed by all three defendants, and for this reason, Gamco requests that this deposition also be consolidated.
Because of the similarities between the arguments and allegations with respect to the 737 patent, it seems that the parties in all three cases will be better served if the third party discovery identified by Gamco is consolidated. Therefore, I am granting Gamco's motion for consolidation, but only for pretrial purposes, because there may exist issues at the trial level that would make consolidation of this discovery unfeasible. Thus, Gamco's motion is denied without prejudice with respect to consolidation for trial. Accordingly, I am extending the discovery cutoff date in this case, September 16, 2002, to be consistent with the cut-off date for the Tabco case, October 31, 2002.