Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00990-AWT Document 28-3 Filed 07/06/2004 Page 1 of 2 page 2 Ofg
Westlaw
2000 WL 1844651 Page 1
(Cite as: 2000 WL 1844651 (D.Conn.))
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Defendant CPI objects to the Magistrate Judge's
j Ruling overruling its timeliness objection.
Specifically, CPI claims clear error in the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion that plaintiffs‘
United States District Court, D. Connecticut. construction of the Court's Scheduling Order [doc. tt
35] that "[f]act discovery shall be completed by
EDBERG, etal December l, 1999" was reasonably understood to
v. establish the date by which plaintiffs' discovery was
CPI, INC. required to be served.
No. 398CV”/16(JBA). In a pre-motion conference held with this Court on
November 17, 1999, plaintiffs' counsel had ‘
Nov. 22, 2000. represented that plaintiffs fact discovery was
complete except for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition,
which had been unable to be taken until after the
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON December 1, 1999 fact discovery completion date.
DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY Several days later, plaintiffs served additional
ORDER OF written discovery on defendant, which became the
MAGISTRA TE JUDGE M4RGOLIS [DOC. # 66-I, subject of plaintiffs' motion to compel.
#66-2]
The operative language of the Scheduling Order in
ARTERTON, J. dispute is the phrase "fact discovery shall be
completed by No caselaw exists construing the
*1 By Complaint filed April 16, 1999, plaintiffs meaning of "completed" in a scheduling order. -
commenced this patent infringement suit under 35 Undoubtedly this is so because such construction
U.S.C. § 101 et. seq. Defendant asserts affirmative has been heretofore unnecessary. "Completed" is a
defenses of non-infringement, patent—in—suit word commonly used in scheduling orders for its
invalidity and unenforceability, estoppel, laches and commonly accepted meaning, which is specifically
res judicato, and counterclaims for a declaratory clarified in D. Conn. Local Rule 38, Appendix,
judgment on non-infringement, invalidity and Form 26(i) Report of Parties' Planning Meeting,
unenforceability. On May 7, 1999, after colloquy used in this District since July 1, 1998. This
with counsel on the record, the Court entered a Appendix is the form required for reporting the
scheduling order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. l6(b), parties' planning conference results under Local
requiring fact discovery to be completed by Rule 38. ("... [T]he participants shall jointly
December l, 1999. On March 23, 2000, plaintiffs complete and file a report in the form prescribed by
filed their Motion to Compel Answers to Form 26(I), which appears in the Appendix to the
Interrogatories, the Production or Inspection of Rules.") Section V.E. of Form 26(I) Report of
Documents and Responses to Requests for Parties' Planning Meeting, "Discovery," 1] 2 states,
Admissions [doc. # 53]. Defendant had. interposed in part: "All discovery, including depositions of
an objection of untimeliness to this discovery under expert witnesses pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4),
this scheduling order by counsel's letter and will be commenced by [date] and completed (nor
thereafter by formal objection, because plaintiffs propounded ) by [date]." (emphasis added) The
discovery was not served until November 23, 1999 phrase "completed by" is thereafter reiterated in the
and thus could not be complied with by the form in reference to early discovery and
December 1, 1999 discovery completion date. This depositions. Section V.E. 1] il 7, 8 reference
Motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge for "deadline for completing all discovery“ and the
ruling, which was issued June 22, 2000 [doc. # 65]. "discovery cutoff date"
Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
http://printwestlaw.com/delivery.htrnl?dest=atp&dataid=B0O5580000001041000453 l494BB79BAC269l 7/ 6/ 2004

Case 3:03-cv-00990-AWT Document 28-3 Filed 07/06/2004 Page 2 of 2 page 3 Of3
2000 WL 1844651 Page 2
(Cite as: 2000 WL 1844651 (D.C0nu.))
*2 The verb "complete" means "to bring to an 30] filed April 1, 1999, also uses the term
end," "to make whole, entire or perfect," "to mark "completed." ("Completion of Fact Discovery: July
the end of." Websteris Third New International 30, 2000 Completion of expert discovery
Dictionary, Unabridged (1993). In common December 1, 2000," 1] 3.) it makes no reference to
litigation parlance, "completed" means 'to finish'; it service of fact discovery, and plaintiffs point to
does not mean to begin to bring to an end, as nothing in the Report suggesting that service of
propounding or serving discovery does. discovery was within their contemplation in
preparing the Report. Tellingly, plaintiffs make no
Thus, the term "completed" with reference to a parallel argument that the order requiring
discovery schedule is not reasonably amendable to a "completion of expert discovery" would be satisfied
definition of "propounded," since it is the parties' by serving notices of expert depositions, and the
discovery, not just one side‘s discovery, which has parties' report states "[t]he depositions will
been scheduled to be completed, thus enabling the commence as soon as practicable and be completed
case to move on to the next scheduled phase. If one by July 30, 2000," 1] 5.
patty does not propound its written discovery at
least 30 days prior to the ordered completion date, *3 The Court reconsiders a decision on pretrial
the other party is deprived of its 30 day response matters such as this Magistrate Judge‘s Ruling only
period under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b), 34(b), and 36(a). if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28
While some Districts have adopted Local Rules U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A). The Court concludes that
which expressly state that discovery cutoff means the meaning of its order was evident on its face, and
that date by which responses to written discovery is not amenable to plaintiffs‘ interpretation, in light of
due and by which depositions are to be completed ( its purpose, and by reference to Rule 38 and its
see, Local Rules cited in Pl.‘s Mem. in Support of appended Form 26(f) Parties' Planning Report,
Pl.‘s Mot. to Compel, doc. # 54, p. 4), the absence which the parties were required to follow.
of such specification in a Local Rule does not
connote a rejection of this meaning. The Judges of Conclusion
this District have rmiformly utilized this
phraseology--"discovery shall be completed"-—to Thus, the Magistrate Judge‘s conclusion that
mean just that, and have memorialized this meaning plaintiffs' construction of the Scheduling Order
in Local Rule 38 and its appendix form. requirements was reasonable was clearly erroneous.
Defendant's Objection to Discovery Order of
Plaintiffs' interpretation of the date for completing Magistrate Judge [doc. # 66-1] is SUSTA1NED and
discovery as not in actuality meaning December 1, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to their
1999, as ordered, but whenever the 30 days untimely discovery [doc. # 65] is DENIED.
response period expired, is nonsensical. The
purpose of scheduling orders is to schedule 2000 WL 184465 1,2000WL 1844651 (D.Conn.)
litigation events sequentially, in order to achieve
case disposition in an orderly and predictable END OF DOCUMENT
manner. Plaintiffs' rationale would defeat this
scheduling objective, particularly under this tight
Scheduling Order, which additionally scheduled
- expert disclosures for February l, 2000 and expert
discovery completion by July 1, 2000. It
specifically noted that "under this compressed
schedule, it is imperative that the parties work
diligently and reasonably to resolve discovery
disputes, reserving for judicial determination only
those discovery issues which cannot be resolved in
light of existing law and professional legal
experience."
The parties' original 26(f) Planning Report [doc. #
Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
http://printwestlaw.com/delivery.html'?dest=atp&dataid=B00558000000 1 041000453 l494BB79BAC2691 7/6/2004