Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

AEVOE CORP. v. AE TECH CO., LTD., 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-RJJ. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20121128977 Visitors: 16
Filed: Nov. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2012
Summary: STIPULATED AND [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 26-4 (FIRST REQUEST) ROBERT J. JOHNSTON, Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to Local Rule 26-4, the parties hereby submit their joint stipulation to extend the close of fact discovery and for entry of a revised scheduling order as set forth below. WHEREAS on May 15, 2012, the Court had entered the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 80), which set forth October 29, 2012, for the close of fact discovery in this
More

STIPULATED AND [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 26-4 (FIRST REQUEST)

ROBERT J. JOHNSTON, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Local Rule 26-4, the parties hereby submit their joint stipulation to extend the close of fact discovery and for entry of a revised scheduling order as set forth below.

WHEREAS on May 15, 2012, the Court had entered the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 80), which set forth October 29, 2012, for the close of fact discovery in this case and a trial date to be set by the Court in a different order;

WHEREAS on September 4, 2012 (Dkt. 119), the Court set forth January 21, 2014, as the date for jury trial in this case;

WHEREAS Aevoe Corp., and the defendant have conferred on coordinating discovery issues, including the coordination and scheduling of eight depositions of foreign witnesses and other domestic witness, and adjusting the current scheduling deadlines in light of such coordination issues and the January 21, 2014 trial date and pending motion to compel discovery;

WHEREAS defendants deposed Aevoe's President Jon Lin as a percipient witness and as Aevoe's designated 30(b)(6) witness on May 24, 2012, and July 13, 2013, respectively;

WHEREAS Aevoe served a First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission to each of the defendants on June 28, 2012; to which the defendants provided written responses on July 30, 2012, and which are the subject of a pending motion to compel further responses (Dkt. 115, filed August 30, 2012) that has not yet been fully briefed;

WHEREAS defendants served a First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on August 22, 2012, with Aevoe's written responses due on September 24, 2012;

WHEREAS Aevoe served a Second Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission to each of the Defendants on August 31, 2012, with the defendants' respective written responses due on October 1, 2012;

WHEREAS on September 7, 2012, Aevoe issued seven subpoenas for the production of documents from third parties;

WHEREAS the Parties are coordinating on scheduling and logistical issues concerning as many as 17 depositions, including as many as eight depositions of witnesses in Taiwan;

WHEREAS these depositions cannot be completed within the time limits set by the discovery plan because of the availability of witnesses;

WHEREAS the Parties anticipate the need for serving additional written discovery requests, subpoenas, and deposition notices before the close of discovery after the opportunity to review the information gathered in the pending discovery discussed above;

WHEREAS the Court's ruling on Aevoe's fully briefed pending motion to strike certain counterclaims and affirmative defenses filed on May 2, 2012 (Dkt. 67, 68, 84, 86) could affect the scope of discovery;

WHEREAS on August 14, 2012, defendant AE Tech filed a second Request for Inter Partes Re-examination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office of all claims of the patent in suit, alleging that those claims are unpatentable in light of prior art. If that Patent Examiner finds that the Request demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Requestor will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Request, the Patent Examiner will grant the request. If that occurs, defendants will move to stay these proceedings pending the outcome of the re-examination; and

WHEREAS the Parties have submitted two forms of proposed protective order. ECF No. 106. The Court has not yet entered such an order; and

WHEREAS this is the Parties' first request to revise the scheduled deadlines.

I. JOINT STIPULATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Parties hereby submit their Stipulated and [Proposed] Revised Scheduling Order as set forth below:

Pretrial or Trial Event Current Dates Proposed Revised Dates Close of Fact Discovery Monday, October 29, 2012 Monday, April 29, 2013 Opening Claim Construction Brief Monday, November 19, Same 2012 Response Claim Construction Brief Wednesday, December 5, Same 2012 Reply Claim Construction Brief Wednesday, December 12, Same 2012 Claim Construction Hearing TBD per Court's calendar Same Post-Claim Construction Order 30 days after Court's claim Same Settlement Conference construction order Disclose Experts for issues that 45 days after Court's claim Same party has burden of proof & construction order Exchange Expert Reports Last Date to Depose Experts 30 days after disclosure of Same experts Disclose Rebuttal Experts & 45 days after disclosure of Same Exchange Rebuttal Reports experts Last Date to Request Extension of 21 days before expert Same Scheduled Deadlines discovery closes Expert Discovery Closes and Last 30 days after disclosure of Same Date to Depose Rebuttal Experts rebuttal experts Last Date to File Dispositive 30 days after expert Same Motions discovery closes Submit Joint Pretrial Order (unless 30 days after order on Same suspended per LR 26-1 (e)(5) due dispositive motions to filing of dispositive motions), including proposed trial date Pre-Trial Settlement Conference January 14, 2014 Same Trial (anticipated trial length is five January 21, 2014 Same to seven days)

II. SIGNATURES

Each signature constitutes a certification that to the best of the signer's knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, the disclosures made by the signer are complete and correct as of this time.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer