Free Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS

Document 18

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gordon & Rees LLP

Paul Adams, (Bar No. 42,146) 550 West C Street, Suite 2000 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: 619-241-4810 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff JOON PARK Frank S. Farrell Admitted pro hac vice F.S. FARRELL, LLC 7101 York Avenue South, Suite 153 Edina, MN 55435 Telephone: 952-921-3260 Facsimile: 952-216-0106 e-mail: [email protected] John L. Haller, California Bar No. 61392 Susan . Meyer, Califlrnia Bar Number 204931 GORDON & REES LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 619-696-6700 619-696-7124 FAX [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, CAS ENTERPRISES, INC. dba KREG TOOL COMPANY

13
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOON PARK, an individual,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CAS ENTERPRISES, INC., an Iowa ) corporation, d/b/a KREG TOOL COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 08-CV-0385 DMS NLS

JOINT RULE 26F REPORT DATE: August 18, 2008 TIME: 1;30 PM PLACE: Chambers of Hon. Nita L. Stormes Room 1118
JOINT RULE 26F REPORT CASE NO. 08-CV-0385

1
FSFA/1051305/5885369v.1

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS

Document 18

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gordon & Rees LLP

CAS ENTERPRISES, INC., an Iowa corporation, d/b/a KREG TOOL COMPANY,

) ) ) Counterclaimant, ) ) JUDGE: HON. DANA M. SABRAW vs. ) )) MAGISTRATE JUDGE: JOON PARK, an individual, ) HON. NITA L. STORMS ) Counterclaim Defendant, ) ) ) _______________________________________ )

I.

CONFERENCE OF COUNSEL Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(f), and the Court's Order dated

13
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101

June 19,2008, a conference of counsel was held by telephone on July 28 and August 1, 2008. The conferences were attended by Paul Adams on behalf of Plaintiff and counterclaim Defendant Joon Park ("Park"), and John Haller and Frank Farrell on behalf of Defendant and counterclaim Plaintiff CAS Enterprises, Inc. ("Kreg Tool"). II. INITIAL DISCLOSURES Pursuant to the Order of the court, the parties will exchange disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on or before August 11, 2008. Neither party has any objection to the requirements for initial disclosures. III. LOCAL PATENT RULES SCHEDULE Defendant has filed a Counterclaim for declaratory judgment of a patent that is not asserted in the Complaint. After an informal conference with Judge Sabraw, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim as to this new patent, called the `373 patent, on the grounds that there was no charge of infringement and therefore no justiciable controversy such that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. (Rule 12(b)(1) Motion) The motion is set for hearing on September 19, 2008.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2
JOINT RULE 26F REPORT CASE NO. 08-CV-0385
FSFA/1051305/5885369v.1

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS

Document 18

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gordon & Rees LLP

The parties have agreed to commence the claim construction process under the Patent Local Rules ("PLR") with respect to the two patents (the `988 and `814 patents) that are in the Complaint. In accordance with that schedule, Plaintiff has filed its Preliminary Infringement Contentions pursuant to PLR 3.1 and 3.2 with respect to these two patents. The parties have prepared alternative proposed dates assuming that Defendants successfully resist the motion and the `373 patent becomes part of the case. An alternative for the event that Plaintiff's motion is granted, and the `373 patent is not part of the case has also been prepared. The alternative schedules are set forth on Exhibit 1 to this Rule 26(f) Report. IV. DISCOVERY PLAN AND PRETRIAL SCHEDULE The parties understand that a Scheduling Order will be entered during the Case Management Conference on the date of the Early Neutral Evaluation conference scheduled for August 18,2008 if settlement is not reached before United States Magistrate Judge Stormes. Each of the parties set forth below submits its proposals for certain major discovery events. It is assumed that discovery proceeds during the Markman process. EVENT Close of Fact Discovery Designation of Initial Expert Designation of Rebuttal Expert Initial Expert Reports Due Rebuttal Expert Reports Due Close of Expert Discovery Last Day for Filing Dispositive Motions Pre-Trial Conference Trial PLAINTIFF PROPOSAL August 27, 2009 September 27, 2009 October 27, 2009 DEFENDANT PROPOSAL Agree Agree Agree

13
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

November 1, 2009 December 1, 2009 January 2, 2010 February 2, 2010 March 2, 2010 April 2, 2010 February 2, 2010 March 2, 2010 April 2, 2010 May 2, 2010

3
JOINT RULE 26F REPORT CASE NO. 08-CV-0385
FSFA/1051305/5885369v.1

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS

Document 18

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4

IV.

IMITATIONS ON DISCOVERY A. Interrogatories

The parties agree to the limitation of seventy-five (75) interrogatories set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a) and Local Rule 33.1.

5 6 7 8 Local Rule 36.a should be increased so that each party should be permitted to serve an unlimited 9 10 11 12
Gordon & Rees LLP

B.

Requests for Admission

The parties agree that the limitation on the number of requests for admission set forth in

number of requests for admission. C. Document Requests

The parties agree that there should be no limit on the number of document requests.

13
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 V.

D.

Depositions

The parties agree that the limitation on the number of depositions set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) should be increased to allow each party to take up to 25 depositions.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING A. Proposed Modification of Claim Construction Hearing

Plaintiff requests that two co-pending cases concerning the same patents in suit (Park v. CMT USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-cv-0668 and Park v. Penn State Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 08-cv-0667) should be consolidated for purposes of claim construction. Defendant opposes

24 25 26 27 28 that consolidation. Plaintif is in agreement that there should be no consolidation if the `373 patent in suit. /// ///

4
JOINT RULE 26F REPORT CASE NO. 08-CV-0385
FSFA/1051305/5885369v.1

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS

Document 18

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4

B.

Live Testimony as to Claim Construction Hearing

The parties agree that there will be a tutorial prior to the Claim Construction hearing, and that live testimony will be allowed at both the tutorial and at the Claim Construction hearing. C. Disclosure of Experts

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Gordon & Rees LLP

The parties agree that the identity of Markman expert witnesses concerning Claim Construction shall be disclosed on the date of the exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4.1. D. Order of Presentation

The parties agree that Plaintiff will present first at the Claim Construction hearing. Dated this 15th day of August, 2008. Respectfully submitted, THE ADAMS LAW FIRM

13
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Counsel for Defendant CAS ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A KREG TOOL COMPANY -and ­ Frank S. Farrell F.S. FARRELL, LLC Dated: August 15th, 2008 /s/ John L. Haller John L. Haller, GORDON & REES LLP By ___s:_Paul Adams_________________ Paul Adams Attorney for Plaintiff JOON PARK

5
JOINT RULE 26F REPORT CASE NO. 08-CV-0385
FSFA/1051305/5885369v.1