Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

. Case 1 :04-cv-00174-JJF Document 105 Filed O3/25/2005 Page 1 of 4
‘ LGGQE & %%.§'YE Lim?
W, l H M The Nemours tituildlng
2 lG@7' North Orange Street
RG. Box 2207
Wilmington DE 19899
{EGE) 658 9i¢li
Paul E. Crawford r=:i:<{302l ess sets
Partner
_ rz1.(3O2) ass-szsz — 4:'—` -'_-r ii. l i
mt (sez) ssssem
Emma. perav».·[email protected] sr, :·· ; =-- ¤ ,-;; ; =-- r
izzvur TG Wilmington Office
' wwvv.ebl§tia=.¤J.com
25 Marcl12OO5 `
The Honorable Joseph 3. Fainan
United States District Court
844 King Street
Lock Box 27
Wilmington, DE l98Gl
Re: Benitec Australia, Inc. v. Nticleonics, Inc. et al.
Our File N0. 04-CV-174
Dear Judge Parnan;
Pursuant to the Court’s March 21, 2(}G5 Order (D.l. lO4), the parties jointly
submit the following list of pending motions and associated briefing inthe captioned
rnatter. In addition, both parties identify what, if any, discovery that will be sought, but
is not the subject of motion practice.
At the outset Nucleonics notes that no depositions have been taken in this case.
The following motions, seeking discovery and to amend pleadings are pending:
l. Nucleonicsf Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Rule 37, Ped. R.
Civ. P. (DI. SO-]./I3/O5)l.
A. Nueleonics’ Brief in Support of its Motion to Conipel Discovery
Pursuant to Rule 37 Fed. R. Civ. P. (DI 81-1/l3/05).
B. Benitec”s Answer to Nucelonics Motion to Coinpel Discovery
Pursuant to Rule 37, Ped. R. Civ. P (DI 85 - l/28/05).
C. Nueleonies’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to
Compel Discovery And, In the Alternative, Request for Sue
Sponte Dismissal (D.l. 87-2/2/05).
I This Motion was argued but not resolved at the February 3, 2005 hearing in this matter {D1. 93,
Hearing Transcript, p. 2-3).
ssszst

Case 1 :04-cv-00174-JJF Document 105 Filed O3/25/2005 Page 2 of 4
Honorable Judge Joseph I. Parnan
25 March 2005
Page 2
— 2. Nncleonics’ Motion for Evidence from Nonparties (in Queensland
Territories) Pursuant to The Hague Convention (DI. 82—1/24/05).2
A. NucIeonics’ Memorandum in Support of Its Motion (DI. S3·
Ii24f05).
I B. Benitec’s Opposition to Defendant Nucleonics Motion for
Discovery ot`Nonparties Pursuant to the Hague Convention (D.I.
88-2/7/05).
C. Nucleonics’ Reply In Support of Its Motion for Hague Convention
Discovery and Further Response In Support of its Motion to
Cornpel (DI. 90 -2/8/05).
3. Nucleonics’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer (Di. 91-
2/ 6/05).
A. Nucleonics’ Memorandum of Law In Support of Its Motion for
Leave to Fite A First Amended Answer (D.I. 92 — 2/I 6/05).
B. Benitec’s Answering Brief to Nucieonics’ Motion for Leave to
File a First Amended Answer (D.I. 95~3/3/05).
C. Nueleonics’ Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Amend its
Answer (Di. 98-3/10/05).
4. Nucleonics’ Motion and Memorandum To Compel Depositions
Repeatedly—Refused By Plaintiff Benitec Pursuant to Ped. R. Civ. P. 37 (Di. 94 —
2!2S/05).
A. Nucleonics’ Opening Memorandum Is Included in Motion
B. Benitec’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Di. I0} —
3/14/05).
C. Nuc1eonics’ Repiy Memorandum In Support of Its Motion to
Compei Refused Depositions (and Opposition to Cross—Motion)
(D.I. 103-3/18/05).
5. Berritec’s’ Cross Motion For Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c), I.f).DeI. L.R. 30.2 and The Tenns ofthe Couit’s December I0, 2004 Order staying
the noticed depositions of Drs. Reed and Graham and preclnding the 30(b)(6) deposition
ofBenitec (DI. l00~3/I4/05).
2 A related Motion for Discovery of Non Parties Pursuant to the Hague Convention (D.I. 79- U6/05)
was granted by this Court’s Order dated January 1 I, 2005.
zsszsi

I Case 1:O4—cv—OO174-JJF Document 105 Filed O3/25/2005 Page 3 of 4
Honorable Judge Joseph J. Farnan
25 March 2005
Page 3
_ A. Benitec’s’ Memorandum of Law In Support of Its Cross—Motion
for Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) D. Del. L.R.
30.2 andthe Court’s December l0, 2004 Order (DI. l0l—3/14/05).
B. Nucieonics’ Reply Memorandum In Support of its Motion to
Coinpel Refused Depositions (and Opposition to Cross-}/lotion)
. (Di. 103-3/IS/05).
in addition to the discovery sought in the above items, Nucleonics anticipates the
need for additional deposition discovery from other scientists at Benitec ~— including
authors of key lab notebooks first produced in January 2005 by the plaintiffqzaatenteeg
third party discovery by subpoena; and completion of Hague Convention evidence.
Benitec does not believe any additional discovery by either party is necessary.
However, if the Court does ailow limited discovery to proceed, Benitec would seek
discovery from Nucleonicsf witnesses on the issues of infringement, damages and any
remaining affirmative defenses raised by Nucieonics with time limitations not to exceed
those provided to Nucleonics.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Paul E. Crawford
Paul E. Crawford
PEC:jtf
cc: John W. Shaw, Esq.
Marc R. Labgoid, Esq.
zsszei

_ Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF Document 105 Filed O3/25/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON March 25,2005, I electronically tiled the foregoing
Letter to The Honorable Joseph J. Faman with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP
which will send notitication of such filing to John Shaw , Esq
I further certify that on March 25, 2005, I have mailed by United States Postal Service,
i the Letter to the following non-qegitsered participant: Marc R. Labgold, Esq., Patton
Boggs LLP, 8484 Westpark Dr, McLean VA 22102
/s/Paul E. Crawford

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF

Document 105

Filed 03/25/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF

Document 105

Filed 03/25/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF

Document 105

Filed 03/25/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF

Document 105

Filed 03/25/2005

Page 4 of 4