Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR Document 185 Filed O3/22/2006 Page 1 of 2
E—lllIail Request for Emergency Relief
1. case Number: `"047-cv-gifiégf-sr.R
2. Check the box that applies:
Requesting a teleconference with the parties and the court
Requesting an in-person conference with the parties and the court
{ Requesting either of the above listed options at the court's detemrination
3- BRIEFLY ¤¤.S¢=r*¤¢-tl¤¢ '€‘·?S°'T.F9'.t*1i$..?E¢[9€¥‘E.!.F?‘El‘l?$.*F.. .. .. .... - . .... .. . .
`Defendants request that the Court bifurcate fact discovery on willfulness. This issue A
was not raised during the March 14 teleconference, during which the Court
bifurcated trial and expert discovery on willfulness and damages. Unlike damages
fact discovery, which had begun by March 14 and overlaps with Plaintiffs
commercial success theory, willfulness fact discovery has not yet started, does not
overlap with any other issues, raises sensitive issues concerning the scope of any
waiver of attorney-client privilege, and may be completely unnecessary. Given the
`bifurcation ruling, there is no reason to embark on willfulness discovery now. Indeed,
SRI has been claiming that it requires an extension in order to be able to complete
the current fact discovery. It was SRI that wanted bifurcation. The only reason SRI
·wouId want to open fact discovery on willfulness now is to prejudice Defendants.
Accordingly, Defendants seek a ruling that willfulness fact discovery will be
hifrrrrzated,. . . .. -. . . .. . . .. u..- . .... ..-- .... -... `
*Any text added beyond the limits of this space will be disregarded by the court.
4. Name of opposing counsel contacted about this request: F_IElowagdi"Pol,lagl§°, ni _`_ _,,_ ii, `Y
5. Response_of opposing counsel to thIs__request:pm g g _ __ q _ _A_ p p _ p _ __ _ g
SRI believes it would be appropriate for the defendants to make their disclosures
before extending willfulness discovery. lf the defendants elect not to rely on opinions
of counsel, further discovery may be limited.
6. Name of local counsel making this request: Davi,d,,E_. __
7. Today's Date: March 20, _ n - g _P
For court use only:
I] A teleconference will be held on to be coordinated and
initiated by
I;] An in-person discovery conference will be held on:
\/ OthGI'Z iw\Jrr`li#ji;r/Jr\¤»'v'¤ .y{r_f;Lo t/umf lb _Si1\-•·-]r1d-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR Document 185 Filed O3/22/2006 Page 2 of 2
Opposing Counsel's Response to E·MaiI Request for Emergency Relief
1. Case Number; j Q4?-cv- 1199 -SLR
2. BRIEF LY` state your response to the emergency request made by opposing counsel: _
SRI believes the Courts ruling was clear and this matter is settled: willfulness is to bes
treated in the same way as damages, so willfulness fact discovery should be .
completed by the present deadline. If defendants believed different treatment for
willfulness were warranted, they should have raised it at the March 14 hearing -- not ‘
by emergency email after their time for complying with a Court-ordered deadline has ,
passed. Only weeks removed from pressing aggressively for all issues to go to trial
as scheduled in October, defendants have now changed position for strategic rather '
than substantive reasons. Willfulness discovery does overlap liability to at least some
degree, particularly if any of the bases for defendants‘ opinions (if any) contradicts —
positions defendants now wish to take in defending liability.
*Any text added to beyond the limits of this space will be disregarded by the court.
3. Name of local counsel submitting this response: John F. Horvath it y `
4. Today’s Date: March 21, 2006