Filed: Aug. 30, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CERTAIN EXPERT DEPOSITIONS IN TRACK 2 SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases (collectively, "Track 2 Cases") and Defendants in the Track 2 Cases (respectively, "Plaintiffs" and "Defendants," collectively, "Parties") hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on June 13, 2013, Plaintiffs have submitted reports from B. Douglas Bernheim, Adam Fontecchio, David Stowell, and Leslie Marx (as to certain Plaintiffs only) (co
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CERTAIN EXPERT DEPOSITIONS IN TRACK 2 SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases (collectively, "Track 2 Cases") and Defendants in the Track 2 Cases (respectively, "Plaintiffs" and "Defendants," collectively, "Parties") hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on June 13, 2013, Plaintiffs have submitted reports from B. Douglas Bernheim, Adam Fontecchio, David Stowell, and Leslie Marx (as to certain Plaintiffs only) (col..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CERTAIN EXPERT DEPOSITIONS IN TRACK 2
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases (collectively, "Track 2 Cases") and Defendants in the Track 2 Cases (respectively, "Plaintiffs" and "Defendants," collectively, "Parties") hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2013, Plaintiffs have submitted reports from B. Douglas
Bernheim, Adam Fontecchio, David Stowell, and Leslie Marx (as to certain Plaintiffs only) (collectively, "Plaintiffs' Track 1 Experts"), among others, in the Track 2 Cases (including any erratas, supplements, and amendments thereto, "June 2013 Reports");
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' Track 1 Experts also appeared on behalf of plaintiffs in one or more of the following cases in this Multidistrict Litigation: AT&T Mobility LLC, et al. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 09-CV-4997-SI; ATS Claim, LLC v. Epson Electronics America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:09-CV-01115-SI; Nokia Corp. and Nokia Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 3:09-CV-05609; Costco Wholesale Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 11-CV-00058-SI; Best Buy v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., Case No. 10-CV-04972-SI; Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00017-SI; Motorola Mobility Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Case No. 09-CV-05840-SI, and Target Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., Case No. 10-CV-04945-SI (collectively, "Track 1 Cases");
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' Track 1 Experts sat for depositions in the Track 1 Cases;
WHEREAS the Parties want to avoid duplicative and repetitive questioning of Plaintiffs'
Track 1 Experts in depositions in the Track 2 Cases in light of their previous depositions and the similarity between Plaintiffs' Track 1 Experts' reports in the Track 1 Cases and Plaintiffs' Track 1 Experts' reports in the Track 2 Cases, and to create efficiency in and limit the time of those depositions; and
WHEREAS the Parties do not want to get bogged down in disputes over whether a particular question is duplicative of a question asked of a Plaintiffs' Track 1 Expert during the Track 1 Cases;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the Parties through their undersigned counsel as follows:
1. Any testimony made at deposition by a Plaintiffs' Track 1 Expert in a Track 1 Case will have same legal and evidentiary effect as if noticed and taken in the Track 2 cases concerning the June 2013 Reports and the Track 2 Plaintiffs.
2. Any deposition that Defendants take of a Plaintiffs' Track 1 Expert in the Track 2 Cases regarding the June 2013 Reports will be limited to a seven hour period. This is not a limitation on the deposition regarding any Plaintiffs' Track 1 Expert's reply reports (which may not be duplicative of Plaintiffs' Track 1 Experts' reports in the Track 1 Cases), or of any expert's deposition other than Plaintiffs' Track 1 Experts.
3. This stipulation does not give rise to an objection to questions as being duplicative of questions asked during the Track 1 Cases.
*Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X-B, the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the above signatories.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
