Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00226-JJF Document 14 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 3
YoUNG CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LL1=·
§§*;."t..‘E.t~";Ta....... t.*$‘;1.t·t?tt§.;§°" THE BRANDYWM BU1LD1NG i%Eti1‘i§£tt* ·"..:‘;‘t“tt’.ti¥t“;t$99"
RICHARD A. Lnvmn JoE1. Abwémn 1000 WEST STREET 17TH FLQQR §A]NJAY EIIEWAGAR J Josnrri A. MALFITAND
Rc: A.RoA.Z . B . i-IAREER ’ NALD. owMAN, R A ,
Fl;E]l]1ER1CKWlAi’(3|)QST E] LP.]OHNSON WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 MIcsEI.E SHERRETTA BuoicAIc Ml):I;lilAEL?iI,t1I'iIli·idILlJEE!izliii0w
RICHARDH. MoRsE CRAIG D. GREAR JEFFREY T. CASTELLAN0 TAMMY L. MERcER
DAVID C. McBRIoE Imonrigiig HOUsEA.L ` PD. BOX 3 91 g1>;;EI·LA§v;nAL0[EOCR03\’$EP EIARIEETHALI. Mn~iEI.I.A
J M. N MART . SSNER E ALM ,
$2-5*... i.......%K MDW W11M¤9¤1¤~· DMEM 19899*0391 MMWR. asm. 1 D9t1.?.‘JM..;’;‘;2‘:..w.....
BARRY M. WrI.1,oIJoREY C. BARRFLINN (302) 5716600 MARY F. DUGAN Immrsn R. Noni.
JOEY W. `INGERSOLL NATALIB Wow ERIN EDWARDS ADAM W. Pow
ANTHONY G. FLYNN LISA B. GOODMAN (800) 253-2234 (DE ONLY] Ksmznn-IJ. Enos SETH J. REIDENBERG
JEROME Ic GRossMAN Ioim W. SHAW FAX: (302) 5714253 IAN S. FREDERICKS SARA BETIIA. REYBURN
EUGENE A. DIYRTNZIO JAMES P.HUGHES,J1L EAMES J. GALLAGHER CHERYL A. SANTANIELLU
JAMES L. PATTDN, JR EDWIN J. HARRON Ln SEAN T. GREECHER (NJ & PA ONLY]
RUEERT L Tnoivms Mic]-IAEL R NEsroR Srnmmre L. HANsm·i Momé T. squuui
- W . MA D.L D M. I .S
Tiillldljllhirli §r(is]?ri;iiGN RoI.l&l?l3IssEEF GE°RGET0“'N> DELAWARE KAl\ii§~I E. lCiii}|{iA§§Cl]srdx'izORD
$.}.’°“’t¥L§“§“" i€!§l"¤E‘$.i’§i M‘°“““"`"“*D“L"“"“`“E iiil$“.Ei§‘}“‘r&l$Sa i@E‘£?’a"5iil'a
LARlRi?li[TARAE\i`i:tiE§ M. BLAKE CLEARY NEW YORK’ NEW YORK Jo!-IN C. KTJFFEL MARGARET B. WHITEMAN
RICHARD A. D1LmERro, JR. CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS WRJGHT KAREN LANTZ SHARON M. 2.IEo
IVIEI ANIBK. D G T E.L
Cisimalttliaii Etititt-‘i.tél’i·i—T0 WWYGUNGCONAWAY-COM WH"
‘“°“‘“""i3‘3· "°""E“ “°“‘*“.§ it E“M"’..N”“ I0.ié"§'§C€i£?itN ER m%'i’i'?‘2i%?$.ER
Rl?ElfI.EI§iAMIiLIl.1ii:EIl:E§IALsH El-ENA t O DIRECT DIAL: 302`571`5018 A KARENL.PAscAI.E I h I
DIRECT FAX: 302-576-3457 PATRICIAA. Wmnoss OF Coimszr.
[email protected] EQSEETNIQ Â¥3§§g"`l`
L EDWARD MAXWELL, 2ND
July 30, 2007
" BY CM/ECF - -
The Honorable Joseph 3. Farnan, Jr.
A United States District Court _
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Voith Paper GmbH & C0, KG v. .I0hns0nFoils, Inc.
Civil Action No. 07-0226-JJF
Dear Judge Fainanz
We, together with the law firm Greenbluin & Bernstein, represent the Plaintiff
Voith Paper GMBH & Co. KG, in the above referenced litigation.
As instmcted by the Court in its Order Setting Rule l6(b) Conference, dated July
17, 2007, the parties have conferred and agreed upon the dates and discovery limitations required
by the form of order. The purpose of this letter is to inform the Court of the agreed upon dates
and limitations, and alert the Coun; to issues that will likely be discussed at the hearing. The
agreed upon dates and discovery limitations are as follows:
1. Pre-Discovery Disclosures. The parties will exchange by September 21,
2007, the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(at) (1) and D. Del. LR 16.2.
2. J oinder of other Parties. All motions to join other parties shall be filed on
or before December 21, 2007.
3. Discovery.
DB02:6l4'/394.1 · l 065370.100i

Case 1 :07-cv-00226-JJF Document 14 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of -3
` Yourtc Cormwav Srxuonrr & Tavroa, LLP
if The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
July 30, 2007
Page 2
i . (a) A Exchange and completion of contention interrogatories,
identification of fact witnesses and document production shall be commenced so as to be
completed by February l5, 2008.
(b) Maximum of 25 interrogatories, including contention
_ interrogatories, for each side.
- (c) _ Maximum of 50 requests for admission by each side.
i , (d) Maximum of 10 depositions by plaintiff and 10 by defendant,
excluding expert depositions.
(e) Reports Hom retained experts required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (2)
shall be served Hom the party with the burden of proof on May 21, 2008, rebuttal expert reports
· shall he served on June 18, 2008 (agreed to change in form of order).
- (g) Fact discovery shall close on April 30, 2008 (agreed to but not
required by form of order).
(h) Expert discovery shall close on July 18, 2008 (agreed to but not
required by form of order).
4. Amendment of the Pleadings. All motions to amend the pleadings shall he
filed on orbefore December 21, 2007.
’ 5. n ( Case Dispositive Motions. Any case dispositive motions, pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, shall be served and tiled with an opening brief on or before
August 20, 2008. p i
The parties have not submitted a proposed Order because no agreement could be
. reached on the final wording. Plaintiff believes that the form of order with the above dates and
1 limitations inserted would be appropriate. Defendant wants to include additional language to the
form of order which is objectionable to Plaintiff Specifically, Defendant wants the Order to
` include the following paragraph: q
Defendant requests a Markrnan Hearing and proposes that it be
scheduled in January 2008 if that is convenient to the Court.
- Defendant also proposes that Plaintiff identify its asserted claims
by October 1, 2007, and that all Markman briefing be completed
{ by December 15, 2007. Plaintiff is uncertain at this time whether a
. Markrnan Hearing will be necessary. A Markman Hearing will be
held on .
. _ Plaintiff believes that the additional language should not be included because the
language of the form of order which provides that the parties can request a Markman Hearing is
DB02:6l47394.1 - . ussarc.1001

Case 1 :07-cV-00226-JJF Document 14 I Filed 07/30/2007 Page 3 of 3
.. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP -
1 The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
July 30, 2007 _
Page 3 `
appropriate. There is no need to schedule a Markman hearing at this time because it is unclear
whether a Markman Hearing will be necessary. It would be more practical after the parties have
conducted discovery to determine ii and the extent of any disputes regarding claim construction
which may require a Markrnan Hearing.
Plaintiff also objects to setting a date certain at this time for having to identify the
P asserted claims. Defendant’s proposal is unreasonable because the proposed date is a little more
than a week after initial disclosures aredue and does not provide Plaintiff with adequate time to
complete the discovery it will need to properly determine which claims ultimately will be
asserted at trial. Plaintiff believes that the more reasonable approach is for Defendant to
propound a contention interrogatory requesting identification of the asserted claims, which will
. be responded to when appropriate. Defendant does not agree with this position.
The parties will be prepared to discuss these matters at the August l, 2007
· hearing. "
i Res c ly su ` ed,
{K
ad SC. Stover (#4919)
CS zcg
cc: Clerk of the Court (by hand delivery and CM/ECF)
` George H. Seitz, Esquire (by hand delivery and CM/ECP)
Anthony S. Volpe, Esquire (by e-mail) l
Michael J. Fink, Esquire (by e-mail)
. . Adam W. PoffQ Esquire
Ds02;6i4vs94.1 _ _ <>6ss7·0.1001