Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-ev-00705-CFD Document 131 Filed O2/O9/2005 Page 1 of 4
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
: Case No. 3:00 CV 705(CFD)
In re PE Corporation Securities Litigation FEBRUARY Qi 2005
` JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND EXPERT DISCOVERY SCHEDULES
Plaintiffs David Berlin and Vinh Vuong ("plaintiffs"), and defendants PE Corporation (n/l Applera Corporation), Tony I,. `White, Dennis L. Winger and V ilcrom Jog ("defendants"), through their
undersigned counsel, hereby move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) for an extension of
the summary judgment motion briefing schedule and expert discovery schedule. In support of this
motion, the parties represent:
I. On December 2l, 2004, defendants filed their motion for summary judgment, which
plaintiffs intend to oppose. Plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition to defendants’ motion is due to be
filed with the Court by February ll, 2005.
2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 40 pages in length and raises numerous
factual and legal issues. In addition, defendants have referenced 55 exhibits in their motion, totaling
hundreds of pages of documentary evidence, which require careful analysis by plaintiffs” counsel. In
order for plaintiffs to properly address the arguments raised in defendants’ motion, plaintiffs require
additional time to file their opposition. Accordingly, plaintiffs request an extension to, and including,
February I6, 2005, to file their memorandum in opposition to defendants’ motion. Defendants’ reply
brief will be filed on March 23, 2005.
3. Defendants are currently scheduled to designate all of their experts and serve expert
reports pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)( 2) by February I0, 2005. Defendants request an extension to,
and including, February l7, 2005, to designate their patent law expert and serve that expert’s report
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).

Case 3:00-cv—OO705—CFD Document 131 Filed O2/O9/2005 Page 2 of 4
4. On F`ebruary 2, 2005, defendants filed their Motion to Strike Expert Report of Ivor R.
Elrifi, which plaintiffs intend to oppose. 'llie deposition of Dr. Elrifi is scheduled to be taken by
defendants during the week of February 21, 2005, while the deposition of defendants° patent law
expert is scheduled to be taken by plaintiffs during the week of April 4, 2005. Should the Court grant
defendants’ motion to strike, the depositions of Dr. Elrifi and defendants patent law expert would be
moot. Thus, in light of the pending motion, the parties request that the depositions of Dr. Elrifi and
defendants’ patent law expert be deferred until defendants° motion is resolved. Additionally, due to a
scheduling conflict, which includes the deposition of plaintiffs’ damages expert, plaintiffs request that
their opposition to defendants` motion to strike, which is currently due February 24, 2005, be due
March ll, 2005 and defendants’ reply be due April l, 2005.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court issue an Order extending
the time by which plaintiffs must tile their memorandum in opposition to del`endants’ motion for
summary judgment to, and including, February I6, 2005, and the time by which defendants must lile
their reply brief to, and including, March 23, 2005. Defendants shall designate their patent law expert
and serve that expert’s report pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2i) by February I7, 2005. Plaintil`fs°
opposition to Defendants’ l\/lotion to Strike Expert Report of Ivor R. Elriii will be due March I I , 2005.
Defendants shall tile their reply in further support of their Motion to Strike Expert Report of Ivor R.
Elrili on April I, 2005. The depositions of Dr. Ivor R. Elrifi and defendants’ patent law expert, if
necessary, shall be scheduled upon resolution oi`Del`endants’ l\/lotion to Strike Expert Report of Ivor R.
Elrifi. All other expert discovery dates remain the same as in the Court's Order dated January 2l,
2005.

Case 3:00-cv—OO705—CFD Document 131 Filed O2/O9/2005 Page 3 of 4
Respectfully Rs1.ib1nittergl,,a?
_e1 ..-» if
. X" - V
_ ayae ;;~ 2... mrfratga W
—··“ *"'“""*··t ». { m°'""“°"””"°’·~·~··»,
David A. Slossberg (CT13116)
Brian C. Fournier (Cl`16272)
HURWITZ, SAGARIN & SLOSSBERG,
LLC
147 North Broad Street
P.O. Box 112
1\/1ilford,C'1` 06460
(203) 877-8000
Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs
Sanford P. Dumain (CT08138)
Lee A. Weiss (pro here vice)
Carlos F. Ramirez (pro here vice)
MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD &
SCI-IULMAN LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
. New Yor1<,NY 10119
(212) 594-5300
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs
WM fj »·-W.,,__‘_m \ gr
B}’¥-.-...€i5}1?E¥~6L~@ "~-%s§~;i%?f.éi(¤¤_§»e3tt¤“gif_,;¢¢M,. M
Stanley A. '1`wardy, Jr. (C'1`05096) Q “` to
Thomas D. Goldberg ( CT 04836)
'l`erenee J . Gallagher (C'1`22415)
DAY, BERRY & HOWARD LLP
One Canterbury Green
Stamford, C1 06901
(203) 977-7300
Michael J. Chepiga (C'1`01173)
Robert A. Borque (Crl`05269)
William M. Regan (Crl`25 100)
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
(212) 455-2000
Counsel for Defendants

Case 3:00-cv—OO705—CFD Document 131 Filed O2/O9/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy ofthe foregoing Joint Motion for Extension of Summary
Judgment and Expert Discovery Schedules was served by facsimile, and first class mail, on
February 9, 2005, on the following:
Stanley A. Twardy, Jr., Esq. Michael J. Chepiga, Esq.
Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. Robert A. Bourque, Esq.
Terence J. Gallagher, Esq. William M. Regan, Esq.
Day, Berry & Howard LLP Simpson Thaeher & Bartlett LLP
One Canterbury Green 425 Lexington Avenue
Stamford, CT 0690] New Yorl<, NY l00l 7
Counsel for Defendants Counsel for Defendants

,,,, . .....,. i .
" #’/‘. X
}’2 Z?
,;.~*` ii/_ "°~·»·.._____·
Brian C. Fournier