Apple Computer Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc.

Filing 112

STIPULATION and [Proposed] Revised Scheduling Order by Burst.com, Inc.. (Payne, Leslie) (Filed on 6/8/2007)

Apple Computer Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc.

Doc. 112

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 112

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PARKER C. FOLSE, III (WA Bar No. 24895-Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] (additional attorneys listed on signature page) Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant BURST.COM, INC. MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795) [e-mail] NICHOLAS A. BROWN (Bar No. 198210) [e-mail] MICHAEL D. POWELL (Bar No. 202850) [e-mail] LEERON G. KALAY (Bar No. 233579) [e-mail] WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Silicon Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant APPLE COMPUTER, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, v. BURST.COM, INC., Defendant and Counterclaimant. Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER Complaint filed: January 4, 2006 Trial Date: February 26, 2008 Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 112

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court entered the current Scheduling Order on September 26, 2006 (docket entry no. 58). Page 2 of that order states: "The parties further agree that in the event the Court issues a claim construction ruling more than 60 days after the claim construction hearing [i.e., after April 9, 2007], or in the event of other currently unanticipated scheduling changes, they will meet and confer regarding the schedule and submit a revised scheduling proposal to the Court." The Court's claim construction ruling was issued on May 8, 2007 (docket entry no. 104). Pursuant to the above-quoted language, the parties have agreed on a revised schedule. The proposed revised schedule does not change the final pretrial conference or the trial dates. The parties respectfully request that the Court enter the stipulated revised schedule, as follows: DATE/DEADLINE July 27, 2007 August 3, 2007 August 10, 2007 EVENT Fact discovery to be substantially completed (as discussed at Case Management Conference) Mediation deadline Disclosure of expert witnesses, service of reports, and production of documents regarding expert testimony on issues as to which each party bears the burden of proof (FRCP 26(a)(2)) Deadline by which all burden-of-proof experts must be produced for deposition Disclosure of expert witnesses, service of reports, and production of documents regarding expert testimony in response to disclosures regarding burden-of-proof experts (FRCP 26(a)(2)) Deadline for completing clean-up fact discovery (as discussed at the Case Management Conference) Deadline by which all responsive experts must be produced for deposition Deadline for completing expert discovery Deadline for filing dispositive motions Due date for responses to dispositive motions
Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

August 31, 2007 September 14, 2007

September 21, 2007 October 5, 2007 October 5, 2007 October 12, 2007 November 9, 2007
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

1

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 112

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DATE/DEADLINE November 21, 2007 ___________, 2007 (approximately 2 weeks after reply briefs on dispositive motions) January 8, 2008

EVENT Due date for reply briefs in support of dispositive motions Hearing on dispositive motions. NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 17, 2007 AT 2:00 P.M. (1) File joint final pretrial conference statement and proposed order; (2) File exhibit list and witness list, and exchange exhibits and other trial material; (3) Serve and file requests for voir dire questions, jury instruction, and verdict forms; (4) Serve and file statements designating deposition excerpts, interrogatory answers, and responses to requests for admission to be used at trial; (1) Serve objections to admission of exhibits and deposition testimony (2) Serve and file counterdesignations to deposition designations (3) Serve and file motions in limine (1) File objections to counterdesignations and any other objections requiring action by the Court (2) Serve and file oppositions to motions in limine Final pretrial conference Trial begins

January 22, 2008

February 5, 2008

February 13, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. February 26, 2008 at 8:30 a.m.

As reflected in the previously entered Scheduling Order (docket entry no. 58), the parties have agreed as follows regarding written and deposition discovery: a. The parties will adhere to the numerical and temporal limits on deposition discovery in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, except that each side may identify one witness whom it may depose for up to two days of seven hours each (thus giving each party a total of eleven days of depositions). The parties reserve all rights to object
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

2

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 112

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. b.

to particular depositions, including the right to object that the particular witness chosen by the other side for the two-day deposition should not be deposed for two days. The depositions of expert witnesses shall not count against the numerical limitations of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). Every seven hours or fraction thereof of deposition testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) shall count as one day of deposition testimony for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2), except that with respect to all depositions taken pursuant to Burst's Notice of Deposition Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) to Plaintiff Apple Computer, Inc., dated June 16, 2006, the parties agree that every segment of three and a half (3 ½) hours or less of deposition testimony taken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) shall count as one half (1/2) day of deposition testimony for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). The parties will adhere to the numerical limitations on interrogatories set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).

Dated: June 8, 2007

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Parker C. Folse III PARKER C. FOLSE III (WA Bar No. 24895 Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] IAN B. CROSBY (WA Bar No. 28461 - Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] FLOYD G. SHORT (WA Bar No. 21632- Admitted Pro Hac Vice) [e-mail] SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101-3000 [phone] Tel. [phone] Fax SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777) [e-mail]

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

3

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 112

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

BRUCE WECKER (CA Bar No. 078530) [e-mail] HOSIE McARTHUR LLP One Market, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 [phone] Tel. [phone] Fax MICHAEL F. HEIM (TX Bar No. 9380923 Admitted Pro Hac Vice) LESLIE V. PAYNE (TX Bar No. 0784736 Admitted Pro Hac Vice) HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P. 600 Travis Street, Suite 6710 Houston, TX 77002 [phone] Tel. [phone] Fax ROBERT J. YORIO (CA Bar No. 93178) V. RANDALL GARD (CA Bar No. 151677) COLBY B. SPRINGER (CA Bar No. 214868) CARR & FERRELL LLP 2200 Geng Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 [phone] Tel. [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BURST.COM, INC.

/s/ Nicholas A. Brown MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795) [e-mail] NICHOLAS A. BROWN (Bar No. 198210) [e-mail] MICHAEL D. POWELL (Bar No. 202850) [e-mail] LEERON G. KALAY (Bar No. 233579) [e-mail] WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Silicon Valley Office 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant APPLE COMPUTER, INC.

4

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP

Case 3:06-cv-00019-MHP

Document 112

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 6 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED THIS _____ day of _______________, 2007.

________________________________________ THE HONORABLE MARILYN HALL PATEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

STIPULATED [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

5

Case No. 06-CV-00019 MHP