Opinion
FRANKLIN BROCKWAY GOWDY, SBN 47918, THOMAS D. KOHLER, SBN 207917, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP,
DAVID C. BOHRER, SBN 212397, MICHAEL J. LYONS, SBN 202284, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD., DANIEL M. PRESS, JUAN CHARDIET (pro hac vice), CHUNG & PRESS, P.C., McLean, VA, DAEWOO ELECTRONICS, et al. Attorneys for Defendants.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2(a) TO CONFIRM EXPERT DISCOVERY DATES RELATING TO SUCCESSOR AND CLAIMS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
DAVID C. BOHRER, District Judge.
WHEREAS plaintiff, with leave of Court, added successor and joint and several liability claims on August 15, 2005;
WHEREAS the Court entered an Order dated December 12, 2005 [D.I. 219] stating that "[t]he Court will not consider plaintiff's recently added successor and joint and several liability claims until after the patent infringement claims are resolved."
WHEREAS, the Court also has entered Scheduling Orders on July 15, 2006 [215] and November 19, 2006 [310] pursuant to which written expert reports are due on February 9, 2007, rebuttal reports on April 9, 2007 and expert discovery cut-off on April 20, 2007.
WHEREAS, plaintiff has approached defendants Daewoo Electronics Corporation ("DEC") and Daewoo Electronics America, Inc. ("DEAM") (the non-defaulting defendants who remain in the case) for purposes of clarifying plaintiff's understanding that expert reports and discovery relating to successor and joint and several liability claims will be addressed after the patent infringement claims are resolved. Moreover, plaintiff's factual discovery on successor and joint and several liability claims is ongoing, and plaintiff is attempting to resolve without the Court's involvement plaintiff's concerns that defendants have not fully complied with this discovery (defendants dispute this contention) such that plaintiff to-date has not had a reasonable opportunity to determine whether and to what extent to submit expert testimony on this issue. Finally, depending upon the outcome of the patent infringement claims, it may not be necessary for the parties to incur the time and expense of developing expert reports and conducting expert discovery on these issues.
WHEREAS, the parties do not propose to extend or otherwise modify current fact discovery deadlines or trial dates. For example, plaintiff intends to complete factual discovery on successor and joint and several liability claims by the current discovery cut-off of March 30, 2007.
THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2(a), for the convenience of the Court and the parties, the parties hereby stipulate to and request the Court adopt the following:
Expert disclosure and expert discovery relating to successor and joint and several liability will be coordinated with the Court following trial on patent infringement issues, but in any event these activities will be scheduled to occur a reasonable time prior to the Court receiving evidence and oral and written arguments on successor and joint and several liability claims.
This stipulation does not otherwise affect the Court's prior scheduling orders.
IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I, David C. Bohrer, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24th day of January, 2007, at Palo Alto.