Z22 I)r;i..»xxr»‘.»xrr1s Avrarvrria Srirria 900
PO Box 26150
\‘Urr.r11mrox. DE 1981 9
Tiers BAYARD Prrrrvt 1,,11
A Tl T O N Y S PJIERIT/\S i,:aW lilillvii v‘.’(¥§€LllWli}iE
www b;ry;rrtll`irrrr com
.%o2-655-50
mm 5
May 2, 2006
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: IT Litigation Trust v. Daniel A. D’Aniello, et al.
Civ. A. No. 04-01268 (KA];
Dear Judge J ordan:
Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Court’s Scheduling Order for this case, Plaintiff and
Defendants in this action (collectively, the "parties") provide the following Interim Status
Report.
No motions to join other parties have been filed and the period to do so has passed.
Presently pending before the Court is certain Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of
Personal Jurisdiction (the "Personal Jurisdiction Motion"). As indicated in their Notice Of
Withdrawal filed May 2, 2006, Defendants Carlyle International Partners II, L.P., Carlyle
International Partners III, L.P., C/S International Partners, Carlyle—IT International Partners, L.P.
and Carlyle—IT International Partners II, L.P. have withdrawn as movants with respect to the
Personal Jurisdiction Motion. Defendant Richard W. Pogue continues to pursue the Personal
Jurisdiction Motion, and the parties expect briefing on the Personal Jurisdiction Motion to
proceed in accordance with the schedule approved by the Court on April 17, 2006.
The parties have engaged in several rounds of written discovery. Plaintiff has
propounded both merits—based discovery requests and discovery regarding the personal
jurisdiction issues raised by certain Defendants’ pending Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of
Personal Jurisdiction (the "Personal Jurisdiction Motion"). Defendants are preparing responses
to jurisdictional discovery requests propounded upon Defendant Pogue and expect to provide
those responses to Plaintiffs in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Local Rules of this Court. In response to Plaintiff’s document requests, Defendants to date have
provided over 36,000 pages of material, and expect to produce certain additional materials. The
parties are continuing to prepare responses to other written discovery, and are preparing to serve
third—party subpoenas for documents and depositions. In response to document requests
propounded by certain Defendants, Plaintiff has made approximately 100 boxes of documents
Case 1:04-cv-01268-***-MPT Document 159 Filed 05/O2/2006 Page 2 of 2
THE BAYARD Prruvt
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
May 2, 2006
Page 2
available for Defendants’ review. Defendants have reviewed this material and are continuing to
evaluate Plaintiff’s production on an ongoing basis. Defendants have also served interrogatories
on Plaintiff.
The parties anticipate that discovery will continue, including depositions, in the weeks
and months leading up to the August 28, 2006 discovery cut—off set forth in the Court’s
Scheduling Order, and remain hopeful that all fact discovery will be completed by that time. As
permitted by Paragraph 3(d) of the Scheduling Order, the parties have agreed that initial expert
witness disclosures shall be due on August 2, 2006, and that rebuttal expert disclosures, if any,
shall be due on August 28, 2006. The parties intend to submit a request that the period for expert
discovery be extended through September 15, 2006, solely for the purpose of conducting any
depositions of expert witnesses in connection with rebuttal expert disclosures. This limited
extension would not affect the October 10, 2006 date for dispositive motions set forth in
Paragraph 9 of the Scheduling Order.
Pursuant to this Court’s April 4, 2005 Order referring this action to Magistrate Judge
Thyn ge for the purpose of exploring alternative dispute resolution, the parties in this case, and in
certain related cases, have conferred with Magistrate Judge Thynge on several occasions to
discuss the possibility of a global settlement. A further call is scheduled with Judge Thynge for
May 2, 2006, the date of this letter. A three—day mediation session is presently set with Judge
Thynge for August 22-24, 2006.
Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the Scheduling Order, the parties have conferred with respect
to the necessity of the Interim Status Conference currently scheduled for May 9, 2006 at 4:30
p.m. At this time, the parties wish to take the Interim Status Conference off the Court’s calendar.
However, in the event the Court wishes to address the expected request for a limited extension of
the expert discovery period in connection with rebuttal expert disclosures, as noted above, the
parties will be available to go forward with scheduled Interim Status Conference. The parties do
not believe there are presently other outstanding issues which require the Court’s attention. If
the Court does not believe the Interim Status Conference is necessary at this time, the parties
suggest that the Conference be continued for approximately 30 days, at a date and time
convenient to the Court, to permit the parties and the Court to address any issues that may arise
in the intervening period. If the Court deems this approach appropriate, the parties will advise
Court no less than seven days in advance of the date of the Interim Status Conference if they
believe the Conference is unnecessary, so the Conference may be taken off the Court’s calendar.
jespect ully submitted, 2 7 .... ..
42ffrey M. Schlerf /1
J MS/rd
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms