Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 42.1 kB
Pages: 3
Date: September 6, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 424 Words, 2,552 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/7935/107-1.pdf

Download Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware ( 42.1 kB)


Preview Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-00583—G|\/IS Document 107 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
INACOM CORP., et al.
Plaintiffs
v.
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff
v.
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION
Civil Action N 0. 04-CV-583 (GMS)
Third-Party Defendant
LEXMARK’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMIME
TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF CHRIS ANDERSON
On August 15, 2005 Lexmark International, Inc. (“L€XIT1El1'i(”) filed its motion in
limine to exclude the expert testimony of Chris Anderson ("Ande1·son"). On August 26,
2005 Hewlett-Packard ("HP") filed its response in opposition to Lexmark’s Motion ("HP
Response”). This is Lexmark’s reply.
SLI 57006lvl/O04907.00003

Case 1:04-cv-00583—G|\/IS Document 107 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 2 of 3
ARGUMENT
In its response, HP argues that it disclosed Chris Anderson as a person with
knowledge when it served its response tc Tech Data’s first set of interrogatories on
January 24, 2005. HP also contends that Anderson was disclosed in two depositions that
took place after the deadline for the close of fact discovery in this action. On June 10,
2005, HP served its Supplemental Disclosures Pursuant To Rule 26(e) Of The Federal
Rules Of Civil Procedure. In this document, HP for the first time disclosed Chris
Anderson as a "person with knowledge?
HP’s response concedes that it did not timely disclose the identity of Anderson to
Lexmark. It is irrelevant when HP disclosed Anders0n°s identity to Tech Data. Because
HP did not timely disclose Anderson to Lexmark, Anderson should not be permitted to
testify at trial. If Mr. Anderson is permitted to testify, Lexmark will suffer substantial
prejudice.
Respectfully Submitted,
;·//;@_.
Thomas G. Whalen Jr. (No. 4034)
Joseph Grey (No. 2358)
Stevens & Lee, P.C.
1105 North Market Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Tel: (302) 425-3307
Fax: (302) 654-5181
and
2
sri svuosivi/oo49ov.euoos

Case 1:04-cv-00583—G|\/IS Document 107 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 3 of 3
Culver V. Halliday
Emily L. Pagorski
Stoll, Keenon & Park, LLP
2650 AEGON Center
400 West Market Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3377
Tel: (502) 568-9100
Fax: (502) 568-5700
Atrarneysfar Defendant
Lexmark International, Inc.
3
su 57006lvl/O04907.00003

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 107

Filed 09/06/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 107

Filed 09/06/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 107

Filed 09/06/2005

Page 3 of 3