Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00960-SLR Document 147 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 1 of 2
E-Mail Request for Emergency Relief
1. Case Number: 04i-cv-i960 -SLR
2. Check the box that applies:
y___ " Requesting a teleconference with the parties and the court
*,__ Requesting an in-person conference with the parties and the court
· J, Requesting either of the above listed options at the court's determination
3. BRIEF LY_describe the reason for this emergency request: g
Plaintiffs seek resolution of a scheduling disagreement in connection with
Defendants Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Expert Report (the “Motion"). (D.l.
136). Through its Motion, Defendant requests that the Court “strike [Plaintiffs expert]
;Report’s baseless references to underpayments . . . [and] any reference to reliance
*and lost profits damages." (D.l. 136 at pp. 1-2). Plaintiffs believe Defendant's
requested relief is more properly presented as a motion in Iimine. This is true
because: (i) Plaintiffs' expert report is not a pleading susceptible to a motion to strike
under Rules 7 or 12 and (ii) the Court’s Scheduling Order specifically contemplates
an established procedure and deadline for filing motions in limine. (D.l. 24) (noting .
that no reply papers are pemwitted). ln light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs request that
the Court order the following schedule: (i) Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant’s Motion .
be filed on or before September 5, 2006 (in accordance with the Scheduling Order)
and (ii) that no reply papers be submitted on the Motion in any event.
*Any text added beyond the limits of this space will be disregarded by the court. ·
4. Name of opposing counsel contacted about this request: Cory Talbot C if n _ _
5· Rs:-wines ef ¤r>r>9si.¤a seunssl is this request . .. . t .
Proposed alternatives to: (i) pemiit Defendant to withdrawal the Motion without
prejudice to re-file at or about the date motions in limine are due or (ii) Plaintiffs would T
respond to the Motion by the in limine deadline were not acceptable to Defendant.
6. Name of local counsel making this request: David Felice @4090) , i n
7. Today's Date: June 7, Zi i i
For court use only:
|:| A teleconference will be held on to be coordinated and
initiated by
I:] An in-person discovery conference will be held on:
w Briefing should proceed . The court; will address the motion in
due course.

Case 1:04-cv-00960-SLR Document 147 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 2 of 2
Opposing CounseI's Response to E-Mail Request for Emergency Relief
1. Case Number: Ng-SLR
2· B.R*..'EFPCWi?..Y‘?’PÂ¥.C-l‘???P‘?"?·‘~?i..i‘?.ti'? ?'TF$I9?'TFEÂ¥ 'F?.9H.??E..'T‘[email protected]’P9§iDQ. °99l7??'?
no sense whatsoever is plaintiffs' request an "emergency." Defendant filed its
§motion to strike matters from an expert report on May 22. Airing and resolving the
tissues the motion raises are important now, given ongoing expert discovery, a
tsetllement conference on June 22, and trial in September. Plaintiffs have simply
tdecided, for themselves, that they should be excused from responding to the motion
gto strike and would prefer that the important issues be postponed. After waiting over
§two weeks and allowing their time to respond to expire, plaintiffs now claim an
§"emergency" and represent that they are merely seeking a scheduling change. They
iare not. They are making arguments about the motion to strike that they should
ihave made as part of an opposition. Plaintiffs‘ "emergency" request to carry out a
gbroader strategy intended to avoid resolving key issues should be denied.
*Any text added to beyond the limits of this space will be disregarded by the court.
3. Name of local counsel submitting this response: