Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01380-GMS Document 61 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 1 of 2
William J. Gibbons Sears Tower, Suite 5800
Direct Dial: (312) 875-7706 233 S. Wacker Dr
wiliiam.gibbons@lw com Chicago, illinois 60606
rei; (2,12) s7e·7700 Fax; (2,12) 993-9767
www iw com
L AT H A Nl &WAT K l N S LLP am iiartmg was
Boston New York
Brussels Northern Virginia
Chicago Orange County
Frankfurt Paris
August 31, Hamburg San Diego
Hong Kong San Francisco
4 London Shan hai
Los Angeles Sllicoii Valley
Milan Singapore
Moscow Tokyo
New Jersey Washington, D C
File No 0298300016
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
J . Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: In re GST Telecom Inc, Case No. 00-1982 {GMS ig GST Telecggi Inc. v. John
Waita, Civil Action No. 04CVl380 lGMSi
Dear Judge Sleet:
This letter is jointly submitted by counsel to both parties in the above litigation. Your
Honor held an in~chambers scheduling and planning conference on October 7, 2004, which
resulted in a Stipulated Case Management Order, tiled on December 9, 2004. The Stipulated
Case Management Order established dates for various pre—trial activities and submittals, as well
as a referral to Magistrate Judge Thynge for a mediation. Due to the demands of Judge Thynge’s
schedule, the parties were unable to hold the in—person mediation session until July 27, 2005.
Although Judge Thynge continues to participate in discussions with the parties as to a possible
settlement, thus far the parties have been unable to reach a settlement.
As to the remainder ofthe Stipulated Case Management Order, the respective parties
anticipate complying with its requirements for submission to the court in all respects save one.
Motions in Limine are to be fully briefed by September 19, 2005, and the parties anticipate that
they will be with one narrow exception. The parties delayed the retention of any experts until
after the in-person mediation session with Judge Thynge. The parties delayed the retention of
experts so as to make the prospect of settlement more likely by not incurring additional pre—trial
expense in advance of the mediation. Each ofthe parties new has retained an expert, and the
parties have agreed on a schedule for the identification ofthe experts, and for the submission of
expert reports. The reports are to be exchanged on September 19, 2005. Because neither side
has seen an expert report from the other, neither side knows whether a Daubeit or other motion
will be appropriate or advisable, and will not be able to make such ajudgment until September
19 or thereafter.

Case 1:04-cv-01380—Gl\/IS Document 61 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 2 of 2
Honorable Gregory M Sleet
August 31, 2005
Page 2
LATHAIVMWATKI NSM
The parties jointly thought that it would be advisable to notify the Court of this
circumstance, and request that the Court allow for the possibility of a Daubert or other motion
challenging expert reports subsequent to September l9, The parties submit that there is adequate
time for such motion, since the trial is not scheduled to begin until November 7, 2005.
If Your Honor has any question or concern about this issue, counsel can be available for a
conference call with the Court.
We appreciate the Court’s consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
. ' ` l _ Jx I .
/ if `;.·"""fii`~ lasgo /
William I _`,lTo s "A "seph‘\ M Arellano, Esq, .
LAT l·IAl\/((& A'l`l<.INS LLP / l Attorneys o Debtors GST Telecom Inc., et al. LJQICICS, LLP
Attorneys for Claimant John Waita
Cl·l\7845l 1 2