Free Proposed Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00892-JJF Document 10-2 Filed O1/26/2006 Page 1 of 2
Drtwonrrr its
LAW orrtcss
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER J Steven B, Goodman
21 5·5 75 ~7066 [email protected]
January 26, 2006
VIA ELECTRONIC COURT FILING AND OVERNIGHT MAIL
Honorable Joseph J. F arnan
United States District Judge
District Court of Delaware
( U.S. Courthouse I
. 844 King Street ( (
Wilmington, DE 19801 ,
Re: Crown Packaging Technology v. Albermarle Corp.,
CLA. No. 1:05-CV-892-JJF
Dear Judge Parnan:
Attached please find a copy of Plaintiffs Proposed Rule 16 Scheduling Order in the
above matter which is being tiled with the Court today. As you know, the parties were unable to
agree on a form of Proposed Order and are therefore submitting separate Proposed Orders for
your consideration. 1 would like to take this opportunity to highlight the differences between the
two proposals and the two different approaches to the case and to discovery which they
represent. I
The principal difference between the two Orders is the time frame for discovery. The
i Defendant proposes an expedited discovery track which would curtail and limit Plaintiffs
opportunity to obtain reasonable discovery, while Plaintiff proposes what is essentially a
"standard" track. P or example, Defendant’s proposed schedule would cut off document
production, interrogatories, etc. by March 1, 2006, only six weeks after the parties’ initial
disclosures, effectively preventing any follow~up to a first round of discovery. Other differences
V include the number of interrogatories (Defendant proposes 25; Plaintiff proposes 35; the Local
Rules provide for 50), requests for admission (Defendant proposes 25; Plaintiff proposes 35;
neither the Federal nor Local Rules impose limits) and depositions (Defendant proposes 6;
Plaintiff proposes 10, as provided in the Federal Rules). In addition, Plaintiff suggests that any
experts retained by the parties exchange initial reports at the same time, to which both parties
may submit responses 15 days later. Also, Defendant proposes that dispositive motions may be
tiled at any time, which varies the language of the standard Order. Plaintiff however, does not
object to this change.
The fact is that this is not a simple case suited to an expedited discovery track. To the
contrary, the parties’ disagreements about the nature of the action and their inability to agree on a
proposed schedule suggest that discovery will be contentious, and likely will necessitate a
szoo Murrow sank centres · was Manner srannr · rrriraosrrnia ra wiosvsss
633557_l (215) 575-7000 · PAX (215) 575-7200 · www.dilworthlaw.con1
CHERRY HILL N] HARRISBURG PA NEPTUNE N] NEIX/TOWN SQUARE PA WASHINGTON DC WILMINGTON DE

Case 1:05-cv-00892-JJF Document 10-2 Filed O1/26/2006 Page 2 of 2
Dilworth Puxsmz LLP Page 2
To: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan
longer, not a shorter, discovery period. The Plaintiff should o entitled to a hill and fair
opportunity to engage in discovery to establish its claims aud, therefore, respectfully requests
that the Court place this case on a standard track for discovery.
i Respectfully submitted,
Steven B. Goodman
SBG:tml<
Enclosure
cc: Thomas C. Grimm, Esquire. (via telecopy and first class mail)
Judith Powell, Esquire (via telecopy and first class mail)
6s2ssv_1