General Electric Company, et al. v. Wilkins

Filing 318

STIPULATION and ORDER re: Leave to Schedule Four Depositions signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/7/2012. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Andrea Weiss Jeffries (Bar No. 180408)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr
LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213-443-5397
William F. Lee (pro hac vice)
Elizabeth Reilly (pro hac vice)
Louis W. Tompros (pro hac vice)
Alexandra C. Boudreau (pro hac vice)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
617-526-6336
Lowell T. Carruth (Bar No. 34065)
McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte
and Carruth LLP
5 River Park Place East
PO Box 28912
Fresno, CA 93729-8912
Attorneys for Plaintiffs General Electric
Company and GE Wind Energy, LLC

15

Filiberto Agusti (pro hac vice)
Steven J. Barber (Bar No. 145645)
Seth A. Watkins (pro hac vice)
Andrew J. Sloniewsky (pro hac vice)
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]
Attorneys for Intervenor Defendants
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and
Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc.
Thomas W. Winland (pro hac vice)
Tyler M. Akagi (pro hac vice)
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett and
Dunner, LLP
901 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
[phone]
William C. Hahesy (Bar No. 105743)
Law Offices of William C. Hahesy
225 West Shaw Avenue
Suite 105
Fresno, CA 93704
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Thomas A. Wilkins

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19
20
21
22

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a
New York corporation; and GE WIND
ENERGY, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,

23

Plaintiffs,

24
25
26

v.
THOMAS WILKINS, an individual,

27
28

Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. CV 10-00674-LJO-JLT
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
LEAVE TO SCHEDULE FOUR
DEPOSITIONS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE:
LEAVE TO SCHEDULE FOUR DEPOSITIONS

1

Plaintiffs General Electric Company and GE Wind Energy, Inc. (collectively, GE),

2

Defendant Thomas A. Wilkins (Mr. Wilkins), and Intervenors Mitsubishi Heavy

3

Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. (collectively, Mitsubishi),

4

through their counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

5

1.

6

a motion Mitsubishi noticed after GE clawed back four documents during a deposition on

7

January 31, 2012. The Court also addressed whether certain depositions should be

8

postponed pending a ruling on Mitsubishi’s motion.

9

2.

On February 1, 2012, the Court held a hearing to address the schedule for briefing

On February 2, 2012, Mr. Wilkins filed a motion to submit additional GE

10

documents under seal for consideration in support of Mitsubishi’s motion, and on

11

February 9, 2012, Mitsubishi and Mr. Wilkins provided their portions of a Joint

12

Statement to GE.

13

3.

14

motion, with GE agreeing to waive privilege over a significant number of documents.

15

This waiver extends to documents beyond the ones that Mitsubishi and Mr. Wilkins filed

16

under seal in connection with the motion. The parties’ agreement provides that GE will

17

produce documents quickly enough so as to give Mitsubishi and Mr. Wilkins a

18

reasonable opportunity to review them before further depositions.

19

4.

20

substantial number of documents in camera, and from inevitable delays to the schedule

21

that would have resulted from that process.

22

5.

23

the Court with a stipulation regarding the postponement of eight depositions, which the

24

Court granted. (Dkt.#310.)

25

6.

26

that all documents covered by the agreement are produced to Mitsubishi and Mr. Wilkins.

27

GE produced approximately two hundred documents on February 27, 2012 and nearly

28

300 more on March 5, 2012. GE represents that it completed production on March 5,
2

Over the course of the next twelve days, the parties negotiated resolution of the

The parties reached agreement, in part, to spare the Court from examining a

In the midst of those negotiations, on February 17, 2012, the parties approached

Since reaching agreement on February 21, 2012, GE has been working to insure

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
LEAVE TO SCHEDULE FOUR DEPOSITIONS

1

2012 except for a handful of documents that are in the process of being translated from

2

German and may be produced. Mitsubishi and Mr. Wilkins have been reviewing GE’s

3

production.

4

7.

5

re-opened. GE, MHI, and Mr. Wilkins have been able to reschedule eight of them to

6

occur before March 23, 2012.

7

depositions before March 23rd and seek leave of the Court to schedule them as follows:

Given the breadth of the documents at issue, twelve depositions must be taken or

The parties have been unable to re-schedule four

8

 Till Hoffman, a named inventor of the ‘985 Patent, is traveling over from

9

Germany for his deposition. He is available to be deposed in the United
States on March 28, 2012.

10
11

 Craig Christenson is a third party located in California. When his original

12

deposition, scheduled for February 16, 2012, was removed from the

13

calendar, his in-house counsel represented that Mr. Christenson would be

14

available before March 23, 2012. Two days ago, Mr. Christenson’s in-

15

house counsel indicated that Mr. Christenson will be represented by outside

16

counsel who is unavailable before March 23, 2012. Mr. Christenson will

17

be available to be deposed on or about April 3, 2012 in California.
 Ralph Blakemore is another third party located in California.

18

He is

available to be deposed on or about March 30, 2012 in California.

19
20

 James Fogarty is a current GE employee. Mr. Fogarty’s documents were

21

the ones that sparked Mitsubishi’s motion and, once the scope of the

22

documents at issue was clear, it was apparent that his deposition had to be

23

removed from the calendar and rescheduled only after GE produced all of

24

its privileged documents. Mr. Fogarty has to travel to a work site for an

25

installation in Colorado for two weeks in March. The parties propose to

26

schedule his deposition for March 27, 2012.
Thus, the parties seek leave to schedule four depositions after March 23rd: one to

27

8.

28

accommodate travel from Germany, two3 to address third party scheduling issues
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
LEAVE TO SCHEDULE FOUR DEPOSITIONS

1

(including the request of new counsel for one of them), and the fourth, due to on-site

2

work that cannot be re-scheduled.

3

9.

4

keep this case on schedule, and sharing that goal. Indeed, resolution of the motion that

5

had been noticed to the Court was motivated, in part, to maintain the schedule without

6

major delay.

7

10.

8

effect on any of the deadlines involving the Court, or the trial.

9

11.

The parties seek this leave from the Court well-aware of the Court’s intention to

Leave to take these four depositions after March 23rd would not have a significant

To that end, the parties propose the following minor adjustments to the current

10

schedule set in the Court’s October 17, 2011 order (Dkt.# 251):

11

a.

15, 2012)

12
13

Friday, April 6, 2012: Initial expert disclosures by this date (changed from March

b.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012: Expert rebuttals by this date (changed from April 12,
2012)

14
15

12.

16

hearings, including the May 11, 2012 non-dispositive motions deadline, or the November

17

6, 2012 trial date. They would also not require changes to the May 4, 2012 expert

18

discovery deadline set by the Court in the February 21, 2012 order (Dkt.# 310).

19

13.

20

concerning certain 30(b)(6) depositions in an effort to resolve them without court

21

intervention. The parties agree that nothing in this Stipulation is intended to affect any

22

party’s right to seek relief from this Court concerning these 30(b)(6) depositions.

23
24
25
26
27
28

The foregoing changes would not require changes to schedules affecting Court

In addition, the parties are currently meeting and conferring on disputes

Dated: March 6, 2012

By: /s/ Elizabeth M. Reilly
Elizabeth M. Reilly (pro hac vice)
WilmerHale
60 State Street
Boston MA 02109
Attorneys for Plaintiffs General Electric
Company and GE Wind Energy, LLC
4

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
LEAVE TO SCHEDULE FOUR DEPOSITIONS

1

Dated: March 6, 2012

2
3
4
5

By: /s/ Andrew Sloniewsky
Filiberto Agusti (pro hac vice)
Steven J. Barber (State Bar No. 145645)
Seth Watkins (pro hac vice)
Andrew J. Sloniewsky (pro hac vice)
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
Attorneys for Defendants Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Power Systems
Americas, Inc.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Dated: March 6, 2012

By: /s/ Thomas W. Winland
Thomas W. Winland (pro hac vice)
Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett and
Dunner, LLP
901 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
Attorneys for Thomas A. Wilkins

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
LEAVE TO SCHEDULE FOUR DEPOSITIONS

ORDER

1
2

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

3

1.

The request to amend the scheduling order to take the depositions of

4

Ralph Blakemore, James Fogarty and Till Hoffmann to allow the

5

depositions to be taken after March 23, 2012, is GRANTED. These

6

depositions SHALL be completed no later than March 30, 2012;
2.

7

The request to amend the scheduling order to take the deposition of

8

Craig Christenson to allow the depositions to be taken after March 23,

9

2012, is GRANTED. This deposition SHALL be completed no later
than April 7, 2012;

10

3.

11

The Parties SHALL make their joint initial expert disclosures no later
than April 6, 2012;

12

4.

13

The Parties SHALL make their joint rebuttal expert disclosures no later
than April 25, 2012;

14

5.

15

No further amendments to the scheduling order will be permitted.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
Dated:

20

March 7, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Sig nature-END:

21
22

9j7khijed

23
24
25
26
27
28

6
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
LEAVE TO SCHEDULE FOUR DEPOSITIONS