Filed: Feb. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2012
Summary: ORDER KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on "Plaintiffs' Corrected Emergency Motion to Amend Scheduling Order" [Doc. No. 175, replacing Doc. No. 169, filed February 15, 2012]. The Defendants responded on February 15, 2012 [Doc. No. 174] ("Resp.") and Plaintiffs replied on February 16, 2012 [Doc. No 177] ("Reply"). All parties are in accord that certain discovery related deadlines need to be extended in this case due to Defendants' need to obtain necessary go
Summary: ORDER KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on "Plaintiffs' Corrected Emergency Motion to Amend Scheduling Order" [Doc. No. 175, replacing Doc. No. 169, filed February 15, 2012]. The Defendants responded on February 15, 2012 [Doc. No. 174] ("Resp.") and Plaintiffs replied on February 16, 2012 [Doc. No 177] ("Reply"). All parties are in accord that certain discovery related deadlines need to be extended in this case due to Defendants' need to obtain necessary gov..
More
ORDER
KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on "Plaintiffs' Corrected Emergency Motion to Amend Scheduling Order" [Doc. No. 175, replacing Doc. No. 169, filed February 15, 2012]. The Defendants responded on February 15, 2012 [Doc. No. 174] ("Resp.") and Plaintiffs replied on February 16, 2012 [Doc. No 177] ("Reply").
All parties are in accord that certain discovery related deadlines need to be extended in this case due to Defendants' need to obtain necessary government clearances prior to producing protected documents and tangible items, among other things. Essentially, the parties have expended their clients' money, their own time and effort and the court's time disputing a change of dates in the Scheduling Order amounting to a difference of two to three weeks at most. (See Resp. at 4-6 compared to Reply at 2.) Further, the parties dispute whether discovery deadlines, which necessarily track along with claim construction deadlines, should also be extended for a commensurate period. (See Resp. at 4 compared to Reply at 3.) Given the opportunity afforded by the parties, the court will impose its own extended schedule in keeping with its mandate to "secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The court agrees that good cause has been shown to extend the dates for discovery and claim construction in the Scheduling Order (as amended by this court's October 3, 2011 Order). Necessary documents and inspections subject to production have been withheld due to Defendants' requirement to obtain government clearance before producing information. (See "Defendants' Report . . ." [Doc. No. 173] filed under restriction on February 15, 2012.)1 This has caused, thus far, significant delay in the discovery process which, lamentably, does not appear to be at a near end.
Therefore it is ORDERED the following new discovery deadlines will replace previous deadlines in the case:
Fact Discovery Cut-off: June 29, 2012
Expert Discovery Cut-off: September 17, 2012
Dispositive Motions Deadline: January 25, 2012
Disclosure of Affirmative Experts: July 13, 2012
Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts: August 13, 2012
Exchange (but do not file) claim terms to be
construed and preliminary claim constructions: July 13, 2012
Meet and confer over claim terms and
preliminary claim constructions: July 18-20, 2012
File claims needing construction and the opposing
construction of these claims, as limited
by the Court: August 10, 2012
Parties exchange (but do not file) Opening Claim
Construction Briefs and supporting evidence: August 31, 2012
Parties exchange (but do not file) Responsive Claim
Construction Briefs with supporting evidence: September 21, 2012
Parties FILE opening Claim Construction Briefs,
Responsive Claims Construction Briefs and
supportive evidence complied in a single joint
appendix with citations in Parties's briefs reflecting
citation to documents in joint appendix: October 22, 2012
Wherefore, it is ORDERED
"Plaintiffs' Corrected Emergency Motion to Amend Scheduling Order" [Doc. No. 175] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART consistent with this Order.
