222 l)r1Axvix1u€ Axrmui, Surrr 900
PO. Box 25150
\i‘i/ll.l\l1NG"l()E\, DE 19899
A ,1* PT O N E Y S l¥§ERl`1’AS /2*/nl l·1iltx.r7S “f!t>§< l>‘;`/
tx xx xx iUl\},`ill`Lii`1l`ll`l umn
52-
tram 5c>2»
[email protected]
October 31, 2005
VIA E-FILE
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Ingenio, Filiale De Loto-Quebec, Inc. v.
Gteclz Corporation, C.A. No. 04-134 (KAL
Joint Status Report
Dear Judge J ordan:
This letter shall serve as the Joint Interim Status Report due today under the
Stipulation and Amended Scheduling Order entered by the Court in the above-referenced
case on April 18, 2005.
The parties have focused a great deal of effort on reaching a settlement in this
matter. First, the parties participated in private mediation at their expense.
Second they participated in a full-day mediation session with Magistrate Judge Thygne,
along with several fo1low—up telephone conferences. As a result of that mediation and
subsequent discussions, the parties outlined the basic terms of a settlement in August.
During that time, the parties reached a mutual agreement to delay implementation of their
ongoing discovery.
Since August, the parties have been negotiating a written agreement
implementing their settlement. Vfhereas the parties have narrowed the disputed issues in
that writing and continue to work toward finalizing a written settlement agreement, last
week lngenio began to believe that issues had arisen that may preclude settlement. As a
result, Ingenio has sent GTech a proposal to resume discovery in this case so that it may
be concluded in a manner that does not impact the deadlines for filing dispositive motions
or other pre—trial issues. That proposal does require an agreement between the parties to
conduct discovery after the Court's December 31, 2005 cut—off. Essentially, lngenio's
proposal provides the following schedule.
1) The parties shall respond to the outstanding interrogatories by
November 10, 2005.
60728lvI
Case 1:04-cv—00134—KAJ Document 31 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 2 of 2
THE BAYARD HRM
2) The parties shall produce responsive documents by November 20, 2005,
along with a complete privilege log.
3) The parties agree to consult regarding any discovery disputes by
November 27, 2005. Each party agrees to provide at least two times for a
good faith consultation required under the local rules between
November 20, 2005 and November 27, 2005 (with the exception of dates
on Thanksgiving). Motions to compel are to be tiled on those issues by
December 1, 2005, rebuttals thereto tiled by December 8, 2005 and replies
tiled by December ll, 2005 (the timing in the local rules is hereto waived
by agreement of the parties).
4) Claim construction issues shall be identified by January 3, 2006 in writing
(via email or facsimile).
5) Initial expert reports shall be produced on January 13, 2006 (via email and
Ovemight delivery).
6) Rebuttal expert reports shall be produced on January 27, 2006 (via email
and Overnight delivery).
7) All discovery must be completed by February 15, 2006.
8) Per the Court's order, dispositive motions and claim construction briefs
shall be tiled by both parties on January 31, 2006.
GTech believes that this schedule is not workable and in the event settlement is
not reached, will be prepared to discuss scheduling issues with the Court and lngenio.
The parties are prepared to discuss these and any other issues with the Court at the
Status Conference next week.
Respectfully, _g_4
,/ m'/"*———..__,
., . .... ,
EDJ/slh
30389-1
cc: Clerk ofthe Court
J osy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (via e-tile)
60728lvl
Case 1:04-cv-00134-KAJ
Document 31
Filed 10/31/2005
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:04-cv-00134-KAJ
Document 31
Filed 10/31/2005
Page 2 of 2
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms