Filed: Mar. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2019
Summary: JOINT STATEMENT REQUESTING STIPULATED MODIFICATION OF DEADLINES RELATING TO EXPERT DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE AND DAUBERT MOTIONS; ORDER HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Standing Order for Civil Cases Before District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, "Philips") and Defendants Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation, ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International,
Summary: JOINT STATEMENT REQUESTING STIPULATED MODIFICATION OF DEADLINES RELATING TO EXPERT DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE AND DAUBERT MOTIONS; ORDER HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Standing Order for Civil Cases Before District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, "Philips") and Defendants Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation, ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International, ..
More
JOINT STATEMENT REQUESTING STIPULATED MODIFICATION OF DEADLINES RELATING TO EXPERT DISCOVERY AND DISPOSITIVE AND DAUBERT MOTIONS; ORDER
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
Pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Standing Order for Civil Cases Before District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, "Philips") and Defendants Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation, ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International, Inc., HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc., YiFang USA Inc. d/b/a/E-Fun, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Court modify the deadlines set forth in the Court's December 18, 2018 Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 573) regarding expert discovery and dispositive and Daubert motions, as indicated below, in view of the Court's recent February 15, 2019 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Philips' Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions ("Motion to Amend") (Dkt. No. 627). The parties do not seek modification of any other deadlines or the dates of the pretrial conference and trial.
As the Court knows, Philips filed its Motion to Amend on October 31, 2018 and noticed the hearing on that motion for February 14, 2019, which was the Court's next available hearing date (Dkt. Nos. 529, 542). The Court subsequently took that hearing off calendar and issued its February 15, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 627), which resolved the parties' dispute regarding what products are properly accused in this case. Specifically, the Court found that all products identified in Philips' February 2, 2018 infringement contentions are properly accused, along with recently released products. Id. at 4-5.
Prior to the Court's decision, Defendants took the position that those products were not properly in the case and, accordingly, did not did not provide discovery regarding those products. Now that those products are at issue, Defendants have agreed to supplement their document production and update their discovery responses accordingly. However, even if Defendants were to provide that discovery immediately, Philips will not have sufficient time to incorporate that discovery into its opening expert reports, which are currently due on March 14, 2019.
Therefore, the parties have agreed on and propose the following modest modifications to the deadlines relating to expert discovery and dispositive and Daubert motions, subject to Court approval:
Event Current Schedule Proposed Revised Dates
Opening Expert Reports March 14, 2019 April 18, 2019
Rebuttal Expert Reports May 16, 2019 June 20, 2019
Close of Expert Discovery June 28, 2019 August 2, 2019
Dispositive and Daubert Motions July 25, 2019 August 29, 2019
Oppositions to Dispositive and Daubert August 22, 2019 September 26, 2019
motions
Reply Briefs in Support of Dispositive September 12, 2019 October 17, 2019
and Daubert Motions
Dispositive and Daubert Motions October 10, 2019 November 14, 2019
Hearing
The parties have significant good cause for these limited schedule changes because, as explained above, such changes are made necessary by the Court's recent decision clarifying the products at issue and the additional discovery needed regarding those products. Those factors were not present at the time of the original Scheduling Order and thus could not have been taken into account when the existing schedule was proposed and entered. Consequently, the parties stipulate and respectfully request that the Court modify the Scheduling Order as indicated.
Moreover, the parties have agreed to work in good faith to provide the following discovery sufficiently in advance of the proposed revised date for Opening Expert Reports:
1. Except as otherwise agreed by the parties, Defendants shall provide the following discovery for all accused products: sales data, core technical documents (e.g., user manuals, product specifications, feature sheets, and application data sheets), source code, and product lists that match internal product code names/numbers to commercial model names/numbers;
2. Defendants shall update their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 for all accused products; HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. shall update their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 18-19; Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation shall update their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 18-20; and ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International, Inc. shall update their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 18-20.
3. By March 27, 2019, Defendants shall update their responses to Interrogatory No. 4 to address the post-February 2, 2018 amendments to Philips' infringement contentions allowed by the Court.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, and subject to Court approval, that the Court's December 18, 2018 Scheduling Order shall be modified as indicated herein and the discovery schedule set forth above shall apply.
CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i) ATTESTATION
I, Chris Holland, hereby attest that I have been authorized by counsel for the parties listed above to execute this document on their behalf.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
