Free Proposed Scheduling Order - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-617-LTB-BNB POLYROCK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC, et al. Defendant(s).

SCHEDULING ORDER

1. DATE OF CONFERENCE AND APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES On August 18, 2005, the Court held a Scheduling Conference in this matter at which the following counsel appeared for the parties listed: John A. DeSisto, Featherstone DeSisto LLP, 600 17th Street, #2400, Denver, CO 80202, Telephone: 303 626-7100 Attorney for PolyRock Technologies, LLC; Kurt S. Lewis, Lewis Scheid LLC, 2300 15th Street #320, Denver, CO 80202, Telephone: 303 534-5040, Attorney for General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC; Genstone Enterprises, LLC and Jeff Knight; David S. Fein, Davis S. Fein, P.C., 2316 Main Street, Littleton, CO 80120, Telephone: 303 854-0234, Attorney for General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC; Genstone Enterprises, LLC and Jeff Knight; and Susan M. Hargleroad, Pendleton, Friedberg, Wilson & Hennessey, P.C., 1875 Lawrence Street, 10th Floor, Denver, CO 80202, Telephone: 303 839-1204, Attorney for Charles Demarest. Defendant Kevin Kissire did not participate in the Rule 26(f) conference and failed to timely respond to the First Amended Complaint, with which he was served on June 23, 20.O Jl2,05aP l okseus t Ce et e Ks r s e u . 05 n u 920,t oy c'r et h l k n r i i 'df l y R q , e r e d se at

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 2 of 13

2. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES a. Plaintiff:

P l oksdsr t n o i o R c' ec p o f t y ii sclaims is based upon its knowledge, prior to receiving any discovery responses or document production and prior to conducting any dpsi d cvr, f e nat at ie. B cueo t nt eo P l oks eoio i oe o df dn ' cv i tn s y e s i ts eas f h a r f oy c' e u R claims, its knowledge of the supporting facts is at this time general and limited. The f t luprfr oy oks lm and the matters claimed to constitute the basis for a u spoto P l c' c i s ca R a P l oks lm m y eesry vl a d cvr poed. oy ok cod g o R c'c i s a ncs i eo e s i oe rces P l c acri l y a al v s y R ny reserves all rights to support its claims as the facts will permit after discovery. P l okspeeesr no nr i ( r eesr dvl e adPolyRock o R c' r cs i w e h " e cs " ee pd n y d o sp p d o) o owns proprietary and confidential technology and information, including manufacturing processes, methods, equipment, materials and related information and business, financial and customer information (collectively, the "rpia Information" fr t Por t y er ) o h e manufacture of molded polyurethane siding or building panels that realistically replicate, at significantly reduced cost, many of the desirable characteristics, including appearance, color and texture, of stone, brick and other natural building materials. The artificial stone building products manufactured through use of the Proprietary Information are less expensive and weigh much less than natural stone, brick or other traditional building products, but realistically duplicate the look and texture of the products they are designed to resemble. The lightweight, easily-installed panels manufactured using the Proprietary Information do not require a skilled brick or stone-mason to install, but instead can be installed by a person having basic carpentry skills and standard carpentry tools. PolyRock licenses its Proprietary Information to a number of companies whose products have generated significant interest in the marketplace for both exterior and interior uses in the construction and decoration of buildings. Prior to the events that PolyRock complains of, defendants did not manufacture artificial stone building products of the type described above. At all relevant times, defendant General Steel has sold (but not manufactured) steel buildings commonly used for commercial or storage purposes. Defendant Genstone, a subsidiary or similar affiliate of General Steel, was formed to market artificial stone building products. Defendant Jeff Knight holds positions as the highestranking officer or manager in, and is believed to own, Genstone and General Steel. Defendant Kevin Kissire (whose default the Clerk has entered) was an executive of General Steel and Genstone. Defendant Charles Demarest is a consultant whom General Steel and Genstone i tl h e t ea a t ait o P l oks r eesr n il i d o vl t h b i f oy c' pe cs and iay r u e e ly R d o its process to manufacture large product quantities. At the outset of their re t nh wt P l okspeeesr df dn li si i oy c' r cs , e nat ao p h R d o e s General Steel, Genstone, Knight and Kissire purchased and resold artificial stone bi i pout t tP l oks peeesr m nf t e ad sl ui t u d g rdc h oy c' r cs ln s a R d o aua u d n o s g h cr d n e

2

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 3 of 13

Proprietary Information. These defendants subsequently decided to investigate manufacturing and selling their own line of artificial stone building products and apoce P l oks r eesrbu ai ni o s irr ne et prahd o R c'pe cs aot les g ri l a agm n y d o c n ma r . In anticipation of negotiating a business arrangement, PolyRock' spredecessor showed the Proprietary Information to defendants following their execution of nondisclosure agreements in which they agreed to the confidentiality of the Proprietary Information and not to use the Proprietary Information for any purpose other than to ea a apt tl ui s r aosi wt P l okspeeesr After gaining vl t o n a bs es e t nh i o R c' r cs . ue ei n li p h y d o access to the Proprietary Information, however, defendants improperly and without authorization used their knowledge of it to develop and manufacture the artificial stone building products that General Steel and Genstone have marketed. In its Second Amended Complaint, filed July 19, 2005, PolyRock asserts claims for unfair competition under section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act, 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a); violation of the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 774-101, et seq.; breach of contract; violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-105; civil conspiracy; and unjust enrichment. 1. Lanham Act Claim. PolyRockspeeesr i l e the Proprietary Information to defendants in ' r cs d c sd d o so confidence following the execution of nondisclosure agreements in which defendants agreed not to disclose or use the Proprietary Information for any purposes other than to evaluate a pot tlbs esr aosi wt P l okspeeesr Defendants e i ui s e t nh na n li p i o R c' r cs . h y d o engaged in unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act by misappropriating and using the Proprietary Information, or aspects thereof, to manufacture and market artificial stone building products in competition with PolyRock. During the initial time period, when defendants were acquiring authorized pout fr ea f m P l oks r eesrGeneral Steel, Genstone, Knight and rdc o r l r s s e o oy c' pe cs , R d o Kissire were given and permitted to use marketing materials depicting the products they were selling. When these defendants began selling products that they manufactured through their unauthorized use of the Proprietary Information, they continued to use advertising materials showing and describing the authorized products they had previously purchased and resold. These materials even included pictures of the original creator of t Por t y nom t n ntl g rdc m nf t e b P l oks r eesr h rpia Ifr ao i ai pout aua u d y oy c'pe cs . e er i s ln s cr R d o The summarized acts constitute additional instances of unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act. 2. Misappropriation In Violation of Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The Proprietary Information was not generally known and was of substantial bs es a ea t t eP l oks r ui s vl th i o R c' pedecessor disclosed it to defendants. Having n u em y executed nondisclosure agreements covering the Proprietary Information, defendants 3

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 4 of 13

knew or should have known that it was confidential and proprietary. Through their use of the Proprietary Information to manufacture products that they have marketed and sold, df dn v le P l oks i t udrh C l aoU i r TaeSc t A t e nat i a d oy c' r h ne t o r e s ot R gs e o d n om r f d er s c e . Defendants Genstone, General Steel, Knight and Kissire further violated the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act through their disclosure of the Proprietary Information to individuals or entities in addition to Demarest who manufactured or assisted in manufacturing the artificial stone building products that Genstone or General Steel have marketed and sold. 3. Breach of Contract. Defendants entered into nondisclosure agreements in which they agreed that i om t nr e e f m P l oks r eesr bu i pout t ho g s n n r ao e i d r f i c v o oy c' pe cs aott rdc ,e nl i ad R d o s s c oe services was confidential, would be used solely to evaluate whether to enter into a busines r aosi wt P l okspeeesradt t e nat w u nt s s e t nh i o R c' r cs , n h df dn ol o ue li p h y d o a e s d such information to manufacture, distribute or sell products similar to those of PolyRock. Defendants gained access to the Proprietary Information after, and as a result of, their eeu o o nni l uear m n wt P l okspeeesr Through their xct n f od c sr ge et i oy c' r cs . i so e s h R d o unauthorized use and disclosure of the Proprietary Information,nl i G nr Sel i u n ee l t ' cdg a es adG nt e manufacture and offering for sale of products employing the Proprietary n es n' o s Information, defendants violated the nondisclosure agreements entered into with P l oks predecessor. o R c' y 4. Violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. By manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale and selling products manufactured through the unauthorized use of the Proprietary Information, or aspects thereof, defendants misled the public or engaged in conduct having a high probability of misleading the public. Defendants G nr Sel, es n' K i t adKs r s ee l t ' G nt e , n h s n i i ' a es o s g' se misleading use of marketing materials depicting products made through the authorized use of the Proprietary Information to market and advertise products made through the unauthorized use of the Proprietary Information was also misleading to the public or had a high probability of doing so. These actions constitute violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. 5. Civil Conspiracy. At or around the time that they entered into nondisclosure agreements with P l okspeeesr o R c' r cs and gained access to the Proprietary Information, defendants y d o decided and agreed among themselves not to license or otherwise engage in a permitted use of the Proprietary Information but to instead use the Proprietary Information, or so much of it as was required, to plan, develop, manufacture and market artificial stone building products for themselves. Defendants gained access to the Proprietary Information o t f s pe ne f vl t ga ui s opr n ywt P l oks n h a e r es o ea an bs es pot i i o R c' e l t ui n ut h y predecessor. D f dn ' e nat access to the Proprietary Information on false pretenses, their e s 4

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 5 of 13

plan and agreement to misappropriate the Proprietary Information and/or manufacture and market products that used one or more aspects of the Proprietary Information without authorization, and their ueo P l okspeeesr s f o R c' r cs ' y d o sconfidential financial and business information to plan and develop a business to sell artificial stone building products, constituted an agreement on one or more unlawful objectives and one or more illegal acts in violation of their contractual obligations, the Lanham Act, the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. 6. Unjust Enrichment. Through their receipt and unauthorized use of the Proprietary Information, as described above, defendants obtained a benefit to which they were not entitled and for which they reasonably should have expected to compensate PolyRock or its predecessor. Defendants were thus unjustly enriched and should be required in equity to disgorge the benefits thereby obtained. 7. Relief Sought PolyRock seeks damages including, without limitation, compensation for loss of licensing revenue, harm to its intellectual property and reputation in the marketplace, lost profits resulting from sales of unauthorized product, and the cost to rectify market confusion and reputational harm. PolyRock also seeks injunctive relief against further unauthorized use or disclosure of the Proprietary Information, disgorgement of benefits (including profits) that defendants received but to which they were not entitled from their misappropriation of the Proprietary Information,xm l y a ae adaonys es ee p r dm gs n t re'f a t e and costs to the extent recoverable by law. b. Defendants:

1. Defendants General Steel, Genstone, and Knight have filed an Answer which denies the allegations of the Plaintiff and asserts the affirmative defenses of failure to state a claim, laches, estoppel, waiver, unclean hands, statute of limitations, lack of standing, failure of consideration, setoff, breach of contract, release, failure to join indispensable parties, and lack of privity. In addition, Defendants affirmatively allege that the so-called Proprietary Information claimed by the Plaintiff is in the public domain. Defendants have requested that the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 4() u t Pa tf f l eo rsctt s ae P r ato u 12, 1b deo ln fsau tpoeu h cs. us ntR l i i' i r e i u e D f dn a asrn a t no tk Pa tf aeaoseotn a gah 5 e nat r s t g Mo o tSr e ln fs lgt n st ui pr r s e s e ei i i i i' l i a p and 53, which seek to bring into the case immaterial issues. Viewed on the jurisdictional grounds this case should be dismissed. The only grounds for federal court jurisdiction is a Lanham Act claim which has no basis in fact or law. T e in bs frh Pa tf c i o scna m ai . hr s o ai o t ln fs lm feodr en gOriginally this case e s e i i' a y n was filed as a patent case but the Plaintiff dismissed the patent claim leaving only the Lanham Act claims as a basis for jurisdiction 5

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 6 of 13

Viewed on substantive grounds this case should be dismissed because the Defendants have not infringed any intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff. In fact, the Plaintiff dismissed its patent claim and does not have any legitimate trade secret rights. The existence of the patent which was the original centerpiece of the lawsuit forecloses t Pa tf c i s fr e e in the same matters. If Plaintiff arguably had any h ln fs lm o t d scret e i i' a a trade secret rights they would have been waived by their failure to take reasonable steps to enforce those rights. 2. Defendant Demarest has filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of federal court jurisdiction. 3. UNDISPUTED FACTS The following facts are undisputed: a. Defendant General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC, d/b/a/ General Steel Corporation, is a Colorado limited liability company. b. Defendant Chuck Demarest is a Colorado resident. 4. COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES a. Plaintiff

PolyRock does not have adequate information at this time to determine the extent or amount of damages that it will seek in this action.P l oks o R c' damages will depend y uo t nt eadet t f e nat m sprpii o P l oksi eet l pn h a r n x n o df dn ' i por t n f oy c' n lc a e u e e s a ao R tl u property, including its trade secrets ­ information to be obtained during discovery. P l okati t t tt t et ttek dm gs ae uo df dn ' o R c n c a sh ,o h x n ises a ae bsd pn e nat y ip e a e e e s misappropriation and use of its trade secrets, it may seek to recover e nat poi df dn ' rfs e s t from their misappropriation or a r snb ryl fr e nat ue f Proprietary e oal oay o df dn ' s o the a e t e s Information. In the event that PolyRock seeks a reasonable royalty, it anticipates that such damages will take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances including, without limitation: t et t f e nat ue r i l ue f o R c'Proprietary h x n o df dn ' s o d c sr o P l oks e e e s so y Information; t u ly ui ees n bnfs ele t og t ue f o R c' h ti , n uns ad ee tr i d h uh h s o P l oks e it q i az r e y Proprietary Information; df dn ' a s f rdc m nf t e ui P l oks e nat sl o pout aua u d s g oy c' e s e s cr n R Proprietary Information; the t m o P l oks gem n wt gni lese ad e s f oy c'ar et i eu e i nes n r R e s h n c royalty rate that PolyRock receives from such genuine licenses for use of the Proprietary Information; the current and former relationship between PolyRock and defendants and the wlu nt e f e nat m sprpii adue t po c dft e a t ifl a r o df dn ' i por t n n s;h rj t u r hr o l u e s a ao e ee u m P l okf m df dn ' i prpii add c sr o P l oks o R c r e nat m s por t n n i l ue f oy c' Proprietary y o e s a ao so R Information; defendants'profitability from sales of products manufactured utilizing

6

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 7 of 13

P l oksProprietary Information; and any additional relevant factors that become o R c' y apparent during or through discovery. In addition to the above factors, deterrence of df dn ' ifl i prpi e nat wlu m s por tion also must be factored into any reasonable royalty or e s l a a comparable damages that PolyRock seeks. PolyRock anticipates that it will seek compensation for harm to its intellectual poe y n r u t ni t m re l e ae uo df dn ' i prpi rpr ad e ti n h a t a bsd pn e nat m s por t p ao e kpc e s a ation and use of its trade secrets as well as the cost to rectify market confusion and reputational hr r u i f mdf dn ' n w uat ie. a e ln r e nat ul flcv i m s tg o e s a i ts PolyRock further anticipates that it will seek exemplary damages and, to the extent provided by law, its t re'f s n cs i ur it s co. aonyse ad ot n r dnh at n t e s c e i i b. Defendants The Defendants will seek attorneys fees, costs and sanctions for having to defend this meritless case. If appropriate, after initial discovery, Defendants may move to add appropriate Counterclaims. 5. REPORT OF PRECONFERENCE DISCOVERY AND MEETING UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) a. b. Date of rule 26(f) meeting: June 21, 2005. Names of each participant and party he/she represented. The following counsel participated in the Rule 26(f) conference in this matter: John A. DeSisto, Featherstone DeSisto LLP, 600 17th Street, #2400, Denver, CO 80202, Telephone: 303 626-7100, Attorney for PolyRock Technologies, LLC; Kurt S. Lewis, Lewis Scheid LLC, 2300 15th Street #320, Denver, CO 80202, Telephone: 303 534-5040, Attorney for General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC; Genstone Enterprises, LLC and Jeff Knight; David S. Fein, Davis S. Fein, P.C., 2316 Main Street, Littleton, CO 80120, Telephone: 303 854-0234, Attorney for General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC; Genstone Enterprises, LLC and Jeff Knight; and Susan M. Hargleroad, Pendleton, Friedberg, Wilson & Hennessey, P.C., 1875 Lawrence Street, 10th Floor, Denver, CO 80202, Telephone: 303 839-1204, Attorney for Charles Demarest. c. Proposed changes, if any, in timing or requirement of disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). 7

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 8 of 13

Pa tf psi : o hne. ln fsre i R l2 d c sr o Jl5, 2005. ln fs oio N cags Pa tfe d t u 6 i l ue n u i i' tn ii v s e so s y D f dn ' oio: e nat psi Defendants will make their Rule 26 disclosures on August 22, e s tn 2005. d. Statement as to when rule 26(a)(1) disclosures were made or will be made. See above. e. Statement concerning any agreements to conduct informal discovery, including joint interviews with potential witnesses, exchanges of documents, and joint meetings with clients to discuss settlement. If there is agreement to conduct joint interviews with potential witnesses, list the names of such witnesses and a date and time for the interview which has been agreed to by the witness, all counsel, and all pro se parties. The parties do not currently anticipate conducting informal discovery. 6. CONSENT All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. 7. CASE PLAN AND SCHEDULE a. Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings: October 15, 2005. b. Discovery Cut-off: March 15, 2006. c. Dispositive Motion Deadline: April 15, 2006. d. Expert Witness Disclosure (1) State anticipated fields of expert testimony, if any. Plaintiff: Plaintiff anticipates offering expert testimony on the nature, utility and benefits of its proprietary processes and information, the harm to plaintiff and its business through misappropriation of such processes ad nom t ndf dn ' s o p i i' n i r ao,e nat ue f ln fs f i e s a tf proprietary processes and information and benefit therefrom, and damages.

8

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 9 of 13

Defendants: Defendants anticipate offering any appropriate rebuttal experts and will offer experts as to prior art and processes that relate to the so-called proprietary processes and information claimed by the Plaintiff as intellectual property. Defendants may also designate a damage expert regarding the damages caused by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. (2) State any limitations proposed on the use or number of expert witnesses. Plaintiff: Plaintiff proposes a limit of four experts per side, subject to modification for good cause. Defendants: Defendants are unable to ascertain the number of necessary experts because the Plaintiff has refused to articulate the nature of their trade secrets. (3) The parties shall designate all experts and provide opposing counsel and any pro se party with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before: With respect to issues on which a party has the burden of proof: December 9, 2005. (4) The parties shall designate all rebuttal experts and provide opposing counsel and any pro se party with all information specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) on or before: With respect to issues on which a party does not have the burden of proof or is responding to the initial opinion disclosure: January 25, 2006, and with respect to rebuttal of the January 25 disclosures, February 25, 2006. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), no exception to the requirements of the rule will be allowed by stipulation of the parties unless the stipulation is approved by the court. e. Deposition Schedule: Based upon the information available to date, the parties anticipate that the following depositions will be taken. The parties have discussed and agree that additional depositions (subject to the limitations set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) will likely become necessary as additional information is disclosed during discovery: Name of Deponent General Steel 30(b)(6) Expected Length 1 day total for General Steel and Genstone depositions Concurrently with General 4 hours 9 Approximate Date September 15, 2005 (subject to timely receipt of discovery responses)

Genstone 30(b)(6)

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 10 of 13

Jeff Knight

Charles Demarest Kevin Kissire PolyRock 30(b)(6) Bruce Harrington Chris Reim John Evans f. Interrogatory Schedule

Steel 30(b)(6) (subject to timely receipt of discovery responses) September 16, 2005 (subject to timely receipt of discovery responses) November 15, 2005 November 1, 2005 Week of August 22 or 29, 2005 September 27, 2005 September 28, 2005 September 29, 2005

4 hours

4 hours 1 day (7 hours) 1 day (7 hours) 1 day (7 hours) 1 day (7 hours) 1 day (7 hours)

Plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production on defendants General Steel, Genstone and Knight on July 1, 2005 and on defendant Demarest on July 25, 2005. The parties propose that the deadline for serving interrogatories shall be: January 31, 2006. g. Schedule for Request for Production of Documents The parties propose that the deadline for serving requests for the production of documents shall be: January 31, 2006. h. Discovery Limitations: (1) (2) (3) Any limits which any party wishes to propose on the number of depositions. Any limits which any party wishes to propose on the length of depositions. Modifications which any party proposes on the presumptive numbers of depositions or interrogatories contained in the federal rules. Limitations which any party proposes on number of requests for production of documents and/or requests for admissions.

(4)

10

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 11 of 13

The parties propose to follow the presumptive limitations of the federal rules and do not propose any further limitations on the type or amount of discovery that may be taken. (5) Other Planning or Discovery Orders PolyRock has learned of a potential conflict and disqualification issue involving df dnD m r t cusl arises because counsel who filed and e nat e a ss onethat e e' poeu d a n ap ct n o P l oks ea subsequently joined the law rsct pt tplaos n o R c'bhl e e i i y f fmo D m r t cuslP l oks oneicr n ynet an t i f e a ss one oy c'cusls ur t i sgt gh r e' . R el v i i e situation and plans to raise it promptly with the Court should the investigation suggest an unresolvable problem. D m r t cusli u suh cnlt e a ss oned pt sc a ofc e' s e i exists. (6) Parties anticipate the need for the court to issue protective orders to protect trade secrets asserted by all parties. 8. SETTLEMENT Counsel certify that they have discussed the possibility of settlement. 9. OTHER SCHEDULING ISSUES a. A statement of those discovery or scheduling issues, if any, on which counsel, after a good-faith effort, were unable to reach an agreement. b. Anticipated length of trial and whether trial is to the court or jury. Plaintiff has requested a jury trial on all matters so triable. Plaintiff anticipates that a full trial on all merits issues will require approximately seven trial days. 10. DATES FOR FURTHER CONFERENCES a. A settlement conference will be held on________________________ at ______ o'clock __.m. It is hereby ordered that all settlement conferences that take place before the magistrate judge shall be confidential. () Pro se parties and attorneys only need be present. () Pro se parties, attorneys, and client representatives with authority to settle must be present. (NOTE: This requirement is not fulfilled by the presence of counsel. If an insurance company is involved, an adjustor authorized to enter into settlement must also be present.)

11

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 12 of 13

Each party shall submit a Confidential Settlement Statement to the magistrate judge on or before _______________ outlining the facts and issues in the case and the party's settlement position. b. Status conferences will be held in this case at the following dates and times:

c. A final pretrial conference will be held in this case on __________________at _____ o'clock __.m. A Final Pretrial Order shall be prepared by the parties and submitted to the court no later than five days before the final pretrial conference. 11. OTHER MATTERS In addition to filing an appropriate notice with the clerk's office, counsel must file a copy of any notice of withdrawal, notice of substitution of counsel, or notice of change of counsel's address or telephone number with the clerk of the magistrate judge assigned to this case. In addition to filing an appropriate notice with the clerk's office, a pro se party must file a copy of a notice of change of his or her address or telephone number with the clerk of the magistrate judge assigned to this case. With respect to discovery disputes, parties must comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. The parties filing motions for extension of time or continuances must comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1D. by submitting proof that a copy of the motion has been served upon the moving attorney's client, all attorneys of record, and all pro se parties. 12. AMENDMENTS TO SCHEDULING ORDER This Scheduling Order may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause.

12

Case 1:04-cv-00617-LTB-BNB

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 13 of 13

DATED this ______ day of _____________ 2005. BY THE COURT:

United States Magistrate Judge APPROVED: s/John A. DeSisto John A. DeSisto, FEATHERSTONE DESISTO LLP 600 17th Street, #2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303 626-7100 Facsimile: 303 626-7101 e-mail: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff PolyRock Technologies, LLC s/Kurt Lewis Kurt S. Lewis LEWIS SCHEID LLC 2300 15th Street #320 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303 534-5040 Facsimile: e-mail: David S. Fein DAVIS S. FEIN, P.C. 2316 Main Street Littleton, CO 80120 Telephone: 303 854-0234 Facsimile: e-mail: Attorneys for Defendants General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC; Genstone Enterprises, LLC and Jeff Knight;

s/Susan M. Hargleroad Susan M. Hargleroad PENDLETON, FRIEDBERG, WILSON & HENNESSEY, P.C. 1875 Lawrence Street, 10th Floor Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303 839-1204 Facsimile: e-mail: Attorney for Defendant Charles Demarest.

13