JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT [MODIFIED] STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING F5 NETWORKS, INC.'S SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, UNFAIR COMPETITION AND TRADE LIBEL
RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.
Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff F5 Networks, Inc. ("F5") and Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Radware, Ltd. and Radware, Inc. ("Radware"), (collectively "the Parties") hereby submit this Joint Case Management Statement in this action regarding F5's Second Amended Counterclaims for Patent Infringement, Unfair Competition, and Trade Libel ("F5's Second Amended Counterclaims").
The Court is yet to hold a Case Management Conference for F5's Second Amended Counterclaims. F5 and Radware jointly request that the Court set a Case Management Conference for these claims, or in the alternative, issue a scheduling order as agreed by the Parties, see Section 18 below, in the event the Court were to deem unnecessary to hold a Case Management Conference.
1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE
Radware and F5 agree that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Radware's claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, and 1338. Radware and F5 further agree that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Radware and F5, and that venue is proper in this Court, for the purposes of this action. All Parties have been served.
2. STATEMENT OF FACTS
F5 is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington and offices in San Jose, California. F5 designs, develops, sells, and distributes a variety of products, including the BIG-IP product suite. F5 asserts that it is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. 6,473,802 ("the '802 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,831,712 ("the '712 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8,103,770 ("the '770 Patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 8,392,563 ("the '563 Patent") (collectively, the "F5 patents-in-suit"). F5 contends that it practices and implements the F5 patents-in-suit in its products. F5 also contends that it sells and distributes products that practice the F5 patents-in-suit within this district.
Plaintiff Radware, Ltd. is an Israeli company with its principal place of business in Tel Aviv, Israel. Plaintiff Radware, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Mahwah, New Jersey and offices in San Mateo, California. Radware contends that it is a global leader in application delivery and application security solutions for virtual and cloud data centers, and that its solutions portfolio delivers full resilience for business-critical applications, maximum IT efficiency, and complete business agility.
F5 and Radware contend that certain of their products compete, including the products that are implicated in the present action.
On May 1, 2013, Radware filed the instant action against F5 alleging infringement of certain Radware patents ("F5 Action"). On the same day, Radware filed a separate action against defendant A10 Networks, Inc. alleging infringement of the same two patents identified above ("A10 Action"). On June 14, 2013, this Court granted Radware's motion to relate the A10 and F5 actions, and issued an order finding that the F5 Action is related to the A10 Action reassigning the F5 Action to this Court. (Dkt. 13). On July 9, 2013, Radware filed its First Amended Complaint against F5 alleging infringement of a third Radware patent. (Dkt. 24). On July 25, 2013, F5 filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims, which did not include F5's Counterclaims for Patent Infringement and Unfair Competition and Trade Libel. (Dkt. 30). On August 2, 2013, the Court held a Case Management Conference regarding the then existing claims and counterclaims, and on August 21, 2013, the Court entered an Amended Joint Case Management Statement and Order (Dkt. 38).
On August 29, 2013, F5 filed a First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Dkt. 39), adding F5's Counterclaims of patent infringement, unfair competition, and trade libel. In response, on October 21, 2013, after an agreed extension of Radware's answer date, Radware filed a Motion to Dismiss portions of F5's Counterclaims reciting Lanham Act, willful infringement, and indirect infringement claims (Dkt. 49). F5 then filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended Counterclaims (Dkt. 51) with the proposed Second Amended Counterclaims attached as Exhibit 1 (Dkt. 51-1).
On November 22, 2013, the Court granted F5's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Counterclaims, which entered and deemed as filed F5's Second Amended Counterclaims, and denied Radware's Motion to Dismiss as moot. (Dkt. 58).
Radware also filed a motion to compel arbitration of F5'sCounterclaims for patent infringement and to stay the litigation regarding F5's Counterclaims pending the outcome of the arbitration. (Dkt. 60). F5 opposed the motion. On December 23, 2013, the Court entered an Order denying Radware's motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation of F5's Counterclaims. (Dkt. 68).
On January 8 and January 23, 2014, the Parties held a Rule 26(f) conference regarding F5's Counterclaims for patent infringement, unfair competition and trade libel, and prepared the instant Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order regarding F5's Second Amended Counterclaims for Patent Infringement, Unfair Competition, and Trade Libel.
F5 brings F5's Counterclaims against Radware for damages and injunctive relief arising out of, inter alia, Radware's alleged infringement of F5's patents-in-suit and for Radware's alleged unfair competition and trade libel against F5.
Radware denies F5's counterclaims.
3. LIST OF LEGAL AND/OR FACTUAL DISPUTES
A. F5's List of Disputes
Although additional issues may emerge during discovery, F5 identifies the following disputes:
i. whether Radware infringes any of the insert or rewrite claims of the F5 patents-in-suit;
ii. whether Radware promotes, encourages, instructs, directs or otherwise contributes to or actively induces a third party's infringement of F5's patents-in-suit;
iii. whether Radware knew that its direct or indirect conduct constituted patent infringement, and whether Radware willfully infringed any of the insert or rewrite mode claims of the F5 patents-in-suit;
iv. whether Radware made knowingly false and misleading statements to F5 customers and potential customers in a manner that constitutes unfair competition or trade libel, including in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a);
v. whether F5 is entitled to an injunction against future infringement of the F5 patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 283 or against future misleading and false statements relating to F5 or its products, or otherwise engaging in unfair competition or trade libel, under 15 U.S.C. § 1116;
vi. whether F5 suffered damages as a result of Radware's conduct constituting patent infringement, unfair competition or trade libel, and if so, the amount of damages;
vii. whether F5 is entitled to Radware's profits and/or unjust enrichment suffered as a result of Radware's conduct, and if so, the amount of such profits and/or unjust enrichment;
viii. whether F5 is entitled to enhanced damages, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, or as otherwise provided by law; and
ix. whether F5 is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, or as otherwise permitted by law.
B. Radware's List of Disputes
Although additional issues may emerge during discovery, Radware identifies the following disputes:
i. whether the F5 patents-in-suit are invalid as anticipated;
ii. whether the F5 patents-in-suit are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art, including prior art not considered by the Patent and Trademark Office;
iii. whether the claims are invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement;
iv. whether F5 is barred from asserting infringement of the F5 patents-in-suit, or is limited in its claims for relief, for lack of marking, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands and/or laches;
v. whether F5 is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, 19 U.S.C. § 1927 or as otherwise permitted by law; and
vi. whether Radware's allegedly false and misleading statements to F5 customers and potential customers made knowingly false and misleading statements were truthful.
4. MOTIONS
A. Prior/Pending Motions
There are no pending motions.
5. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
The Parties do not propose any extension or deadline by which to amend pleadings beyond the deadlines set by the federal and local rules.
6. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
The Parties certify they have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information ("ESI Guidelines") and have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and agreed to take reasonable measures to preserve all relevant, discoverable materials that are currently in their possession, custody, or control. The Parties have taken appropriate steps to preserve information potentially relevant and responsive to the issues in dispute as currently understood by the Parties.
7. INITIAL DISCLOSURES
Initial Disclosures were exchanged the same day as the filing of this Joint Case Management Schedule.
8. DISCOVERY
The Parties discussed the scope of their respective anticipated discovery. F5 seeks discovery regarding the Accused Radware Products, including source code, the development of the Accused Radware Products, design documents and user guides, Radware's knowledge of F5's patents and products, Radware's marketing, sales and financial documents concerning the accused features, and Radware's statements to customers and potential customers regarding F5 and its products.
Radware seeks discovery regarding, among other things, the conception and reduction to practice of the alleged inventions, the prior art, F5's evidence and basis, if any, for claiming Radware infringes, F5's evidence and basis for its claim of damages, and other information relevant to the issues in the case.
The Parties disagree as to whether F5 marked its products in a manner conforming with 35 U.S.C § 287 prior to filing its counterclaim against Radware on August 29, 2013. For this reason, Radware is of the position that discovery concerning F5's patent infringement counterclaims is limited to accused products made, used, sold or offered for sale by Radware during the potential damages period beginning on August 29, 2013, the date of service of F5's First Amended Answer and Counterclaim. See Dkt. No. 39. Radware's position regarding the scope of discovery F5 is entitled on its patent infringement counterclaims reflects the same position F5 has taken with respect to Radware's patent infringement claims. During the meet confer, F5 conceded that it had not effectively marked its products. F5 subsequently retracted its position concerning its compliance with Section 287. Radware provided F5 with authority showing that its marking practices do not comply with the marking statute and F5 provided no countervailing authority. F5, however, is still investigating the issue and will provide appropriate responses to discovery requests and countervailing authority, if any, in order to understand how Section 287 effects the relief available in this case.
The Parties agree to abide by the Protective Order entered by the Court in this action. (Dkt. 37). The Parties further agree to abide by the Stipulated Order regarding Discovery of Electronically Stored Information filed in this action. (Dkt. 44).
The Parties' scheduling proposals are addressed in the section below entitled "Scheduling."
The Parties agree to the following limitations on discovery imposed under the federal rules or by local rule. The Parties' respective positions are as follows:
i. Interrogatories: Each party is entitled to 13 written interrogatories, as permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.
ii. Request for Admissions. Each party is entitled to 38 written Requests for Admissions, exclusive of requests for purposes of authentication. These requests for admission are in addition to the terms exchanged regarding Radware's patent claims against F5 and A10
iii. Depositions: Each party is entitled to 40 hours of fact depositions, as permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30. For Roy Zisapel and Amir Peles, F5 has an additional 5 hours for deposition each in addition to the 10 hours shared with A10 regarding Radware's patent claims against F5 and A10.
iv. ESI: Each party is entitled to 10 search terms per custodian, which production will be governed by the Parties Stipulated ESI Order (Dkt. 44). These search terms are in addition to the terms exchanged regarding Radware's patent claims against F5 and A10.
9. SCHEDULE.
The Parties suggest the schedule set forth below in the section below entitled "Scheduling."
10. DISCOVERY MATTERS IN DISPUTE.
There are no current discovery disputes.
11. CLASS ACTIONS
Not applicable.
12. RELATED CASES
The present action has been deemed related to Radware, Ltd. and Radware, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., 5:13-CV-02021 RMW.
13. RELIEF
A. F5's Statement of Relief Sought in the F5 Counterclaims.
In addition to the relief sought as stated in the Amended Joint Case Management Statement and Order (Dkt. 38), F5 also seeks the following claims of relief for its Patent Infringement, Unfair Competition, and Trade Libel Counterclaims:
i. For an entry of judgment against Radware and in favor of F5 in all respects, including that Radware has infringed the F5 patents-in-suit and that Radware's actions constitute unfair competition and trade libel, including under the Lanham Act;
ii. For an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Radware, and its respective officers, directors, shareholders, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, all parent, subsidiary and affiliate corporations, its successors in interest and assigns, and all other entities and individuals acting in concert with it or on its behalf, including customers, from infringing F5's patent rights, including the F5 patents-in-suit, and from making misleading and false statements relating to F5 or its products, or otherwise engaging in unfair competition or trade libel;
iii. For F5's damages, Radware's profits, and/or recovery of Radware's unjust enrichment, according to proof, for Radware's unlawful acts, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and that such damages, profits, and unjust enrichment be increased as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, or as otherwise provided by law;
iv. A judgment from this Court awarding F5 costs of the suit and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, 15 U.S.C. § 1117, or as otherwise permitted by law; and
v. Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
B. Radware's Statement of Relief Sought.
Radware is seeking at least the following relief:
i. For a declaratory judgment that Radware has not infringed, directly or indirectly, the F5 patents-in-suit;
ii. For a declaratory judgment that the F5 patents-in-suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C §§ 102, 103 and/or 112;
iii. For a permanent injunction precluding F5 from suggesting or asserting that Radware has infringed any claims of the F5 patents-in-suit; and
iv. An award of Radware's attorneys' fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or as otherwise permitted by law.
14. SETTLEMENT AND ADR
The Parties filed their ADR Certification and joint Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting ADR Process on July 12, 2013 and agreed to proceed through an agreed-upon private mediator. The Parties further agree to complete mediation within 60 days from the date the Court issues its Markman Order for the F5 patents-in-suit.
15. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES
The Parties have declined to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes.
16. NARROWING OF ISSUES
The Parties have not yet identified any issues that can be narrowed for trial.
17. EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE
The Parties do not believe that this is the type of case that can be handled on an expedited schedule with streamlined procedures.
18. SCHEDULING
The Parties propose that the Court adopt the schedule set forth in the [Proposed] Case Management Order attached hereto.
Event Parties' Proposal
Rule 26(f) for F5's Second January 8 and January 23, 2014
Amended Counterclaims for Patent
Infringement, Unfair Competition
and Trade Libel
Joint CMC statement due Filed February 3, 2014
Exchange of Initial Disclosures Filed February 3, 2014
Case Management Conference for To Be Set By Court. The Parties jointly request that the
F5's Second Amende court issue a scheduling order as agreed by the Parties in the
Counterclaims for Patent event the Court were to deem unnecessary to hold a Case
Infringement, Unfair Competition Management Conference for F5's Second Amended
and Trade Libel Counterclaims.
Plaintiff to serve (1) Disclosure of No later than 14 days after the Case Management
Asserted Claims, (2) Infringement Conference set forth above
Contentions and (3) Document
Production accompanying
disclosure. PLR 3-1 and 3-2.
Defendants to serve Invalidity No later than 45 days after service of the Disclosure of
Contentions and Document Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions set forth
Production accompanying above
disclosure. PLR 3-3 and 3-4.
Parties exchange claim terms for No later than 14 days after service of the Invalidity
construction. PLR 4-1(a). Contentions set forth above
Deadline to meet and confer to limit No later than 7 days after the exchange of claim terms for
terms in dispute and jointly identify construction pursuant to PLR 4-1(a) set forth above
the ten (10) terms to be most
significant in resolving the Parties'
dispute. PLR 4-1(b).
Parties to exchange proposed No later than 21 days after the exchange of claim terms for
Preliminary claim constructions construction pursuant to PLR 4-1(a) set forth above
with identification of all references
for support. PLR 4.2(a)(b).
Deadline to meet and confer to No later than 30 days after the exchange of claim terms for
narrow the issues and finalize construction pursuant to PLR 4-1(a) set forth above
preparation of Joint Claim
Construction and Prehearing
Statement. PLR 4.2(c).
Joint Claim Construction and No later than 60 days after service of the Invalidity
Prehearing Statement due. PLR 4-3. Contentions set forth above
Claim construction discovery 30 days after service and filing of the Joint Claim
closes. PLR 4-4. Construction and Prehearing Statement set forth above
F5 to file and serve Opening No later than 14 days after the close of Claim construction
Markman Brief with supporting discovery set forth above
evidence (including expert
declarations) regarding claim
construction. PLR 4-5(a).
Radware to file and serve No later than 14 days after the Opening Markman Brief is
Responsive Markman Brief with filed and served as set forth above
supporting evidence (including
expert declarations) regarding claim
construction. PLR 4-5(b).
Parties to file and serve Reply No later than 7 days after the Responsive Markman Brief is
Markman Brief with supporting filed and served as set forth above
evidence (including expert
declarations) regarding claim
construction. PLR 4-5(c).
Technology Tutorial (at Court's Within 14 days after the Responsive Markman Brief is filed
option) and served as set forth above (or as soon thereafter subject
to the Court's availability) or, at the Court's option, at the
Markman Hearing
Markman Hearing Within 21 days after the Responsive Markman Brief is filed
and served as set forth above (or as soon thereafter subject
to the Court's availability)
Markman Order TBD by the Court
Last day for Parties to amend 15 days after Markman Order
"Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
Infringement Contentions" and
"Invalidity Contentions."
Close of Fact Discovery 60 days after Markman Order
Last Day to complete ADR 60 days after Markman Order
Opening Expert Reports Due 105 days after Markman Order
Rebuttal Expert Reports Due 135 days after Markman Order
Close of Expert Discovery 175 days after Markman Order
Last Day to File Dispositive Motion 205 days after Markman Order
Opposition to Dispositive Motion 225 days after Markman Order
Reply to Dispositive Motion 235 days after Markman Order
Last Date for Hearing on 250 days after Markman Order
Dispositive Motions. PLR 4-6
Final Pretrial Conference Subject to Court's availability
(60 days after Ruling on Dispositive Motions, or if none
filed, Close of Expert Discovery)
Last Day to File Pretrial Disclosures 30 days before Pretrial Conference
Last Day to Meet and Confer prior 15 days before Pretrial Conference
to final Pre-Trial Conference
Last Day to File Motions in Limine; 10 days before Pretrial Conference
Trial Briefs; Proposed Voire Dire
Questions; Jury Instructions; Joint
Pre-Trial Statement; Form of
Verdict; Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law
Objections to Pre-Trial Disclosure 5 days before Pre-Trial Conference
and Motions in Limine Due
Final Pre-trial Conference One week before Trial
Trial Subject to the Court's availability.
19. TRIAL
The Parties have requested a jury trial and estimate that the length of the trial in this case will be approximately 5-7 court days. This estimate may change depending on the actual claims, defenses, and products presented at trial in this matter.
20. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
The Parties have their Certification of Interested Entities or Persons required by Civil Local Rule 3-16 certifying that there are no persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities that (i) have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding. (Dkt. 002).
21. OTHER
No other matters pending at time.
[PROPOSED] JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is adopted by the Court as the Case Management Order for F5's Second Amended Counterclaims for Patent Infringement, Unfair Competition and Trade Libel and the Parties are directed to comply with this Order. Accordingly, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Patent Local Rules ("PLR"), the Court Orders adoption of the following Pretrial Docket Control Schedule:
Event Parties' Proposal
Rule 26(f) conference for F5's January 8, 2014 and January 23, 2014
Second Amended Counterclaims for
Patent Infringement, Unfair
Competition and Trade Libel
Joint CMC statement due Filed February 3, 2014
Exchange of Initial Disclosures Filed February 3, 2014
Case Management Conference for To Be Set By Court. The Parties jointly request that the
F5's Second Amended court issue a scheduling order as agreed by the Parties in the
Counterclaims for Patent event the Court were to deem unnecessary to hold a Case
Infringement, Unfair Competition Management Conference for F5's Second Amended
and Trade Libel Counterclaims.
Plaintiff to serve (1) Disclosure of No later than 14 days after the Case Management
Asserted Claims, (2) Infringement Conference set forth above
Contentions and (3) Document March 20, 2014
Production accompanying
disclosure. PLR 3-1 and 3-2.
Defendants to serve Invalidity No later than 45 days after service of the Disclosure of
Contentions and Document Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions set forth
Production accompanying above
disclosure. PLR 3-3 and 3-4.
Parties exchange claim terms for No later than 14 days after service of the Invalidity
construction. PLR 4-1(a). Contentions set forth above
Deadline to meet and confer to limit No later than 7 days after the exchange of claim terms for
terms in dispute and jointly identify construction pursuant to PLR 4-1(a) set forth above
the ten (10) terms to be most
significant in resolving the parties'
dispute. PLR 4-1(b).
Parties to exchange proposed No later than 21 days after the exchange of claim terms for
Preliminary claim constructions construction pursuant to PLR 4-1(a) set forth above
with identification of all references
for support. PLR 4.2(a)(b).
Deadline to meet and confer to No later than 30 days after the exchange of claim terms for
narrow the issues and finalize construction pursuant to PLR 4-1(a) set forth above
preparation of Joint Claim
Construction and Prehearing
Statement. PLR 4.2(c).
Joint Claim Construction and No later than 60 days after service of the Invalidity
Prehearing Statement due. PLR 4-3. Contentions set forth above
Claim construction discovery 30 days after service and filing of the Joint Claim
closes. PLR 4-4. Construction and Prehearing Statement set forth above
Plaintiffs to file and serve Opening No later than 14 days after the close of Claim construction
Markman Brief with supporting discovery set forth above
evidence (including expert Opening summary judgment briefs that relate to claim
declarations) regarding claim
construction. PLR 4-5(a). constructions also due.
Defendant to file and serve No later than 14 days after the Opening Markman Brief is
Responsive Markman Brief with filed and served as set forth above
supporting evidence (including
expert declarations) regarding claim Responsive summary judgment briefs due.
construction. PLR 4-5(b).
Parties to file and serve Reply No later than 7 days after the Responsive Markman Brief is
Markman Brief with supporting filed and served as set forth above
evidence (including expert
declarations) regarding claim Reply summary judgment briefs due.
construction. PLR 4-5(c).
Technology Tutorial (at Court's Within 14 days after the Responsive Markman Brief is filed
option) and served as set forth above (or as soon thereafter subject
to the Court's availability) or, at the Court's option, at the
Markman Hearing
Markman Hearing Within 21 days after the Responsive Markman Brief is filed
and served as set forth above (or as soon thereafter subject
Summary judgment hearing to the Court's availability)
Markman Order TBD by the Court
Last day for Parties to amend 15 days after Markman Order
"Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
Infringement Contentions" and
"Invalidity Contentions."
Close of Fact Discovery 60 days after Markman Order
Last Day to complete ADR 60 days after Markman Order
Opening Expert Reports Due 105 days after Markman Order
Rebuttal Expert Reports Due 135 days after Markman Order
Close of Expert Discovery 175 days after Markman Order
Last Day to File Dispositive Motion 205 days after Markman Order
Opposition to Dispositive Motion 225 days after Markman Order
Reply to Dispositive Motion 235 days after Markman Order
Last Date for Hearing on 250 days after Markman Order
Dispositive Motions. PLR 4-6
Final Pretrial Conference Subject to Court's availability
(60 days after Ruling on Dispositive Motions or if none
filed, Close of Expert Discovery)
Last Day to File Pretrial Disclosures 30 days before Pretrial Conference
Last Day to Meet and Confer prior 15 days before Pretrial Conference
to final Pre-Trial Conference
Last Day to File Motions in Limine; 10 days before Pretrial Conference
Trial Briefs; Proposed Voire Dire
Questions; Jury Instructions; Joint
Pre-Trial Statement; Form of
Verdict; Proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law
Objections to Pre-Trial Disclosure 5 days before PreTrial Conference
and Motions in Limine Due
Final Pre-trial Conference One week before Trial
Trial One week after Pretrial Conference
(or as soon thereafter subject to the Court's availability)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
