Lego A/S et al v. Best-Lock Construction Toys, Inc.

Filing 115

ORDER (see attached). In light of the parties' status report letters, the Court orders a teleconference to be scheduled for the purpose of determining the boundaries of discovery and a time table for subsequent stages of litigation. The parties are directed to confer and select a date between July 7 and 10 at 2:00pm. Parties must notify the court of its choice date by June 21, 2014. The hearing will take place in the 17th floor courtroom at 157 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 6/17/14. (Wang, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

LEGO A/S, and LEGO SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

3:11 - CV- 1586 (CSH)

v.
BEST-LOCK CONSTRUCTION TOYS,
Defendant.

JUNE 17, 2014

ORDER
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
As directed by the Court, counsel for the parties have sent letters summarizing the present
status of this interesting case.
I have the benefit of a letter dated June 12, 2014 from Ms. Alquist (counsel for Lego) and a
letter of even date from Mr. Faber (counsel for Best-Lock). Those letters state, with differing
degrees of emphasis, that settlement discussions have taken place, but peace has not yet broken out
on the Western Front, or anywhere else in what counsel characterize as a dispute of global
dimensions. Mr. Faber says that "on June 9, 2014, Best-Lock conveyed its proposed settlement
terms" to counsel for Lego, and "[t]o date, Lego has not responded." Ms. Alquist states that "[w]hile
willing to participate in ongoing settlement discussions," Lego "is determined to litigate this case to
a conclusion," a corporate state of mind suggestive of the inherent difficulty in driving a car with the
gas pedal and foot brake both firmly depressed. I mean no criticism of counsel; that is the manner
in which experienced trial attorneys frequently conduct litigation.

1

"Hope," the poet tells us, "springs eternal,"1so one may hope that these competing creators
of childhood companions may yet compose their differences. But it is now necessary to chart the
future course of the continuing litigation. In that regard, counsels' perceptions seem to differ. Mr.
Faber takes the position that "all discovery going forward [should] be limited to the issue of
equitable estoppel." Faber Letter at 2. In his view, whatever impact the Supreme Court's decision
in Petrella v. MGM, 188 L.Ed. 2d 979 (2014) may have on Best-Lock's laches defense, "it appears
to have no effect on Best-Lock's equitable estoppel defense." Faber Letter at 1. Ms. Alquist's
suggestions paint with a broader brush. She submits a proposed schedule which contemplates fullscale discovery featuring written interrogatories, depositions of party and third-party fact witnesses,
and completion of the discovery rules protocol applicable to expert witnesses. This proposed
schedule leads up to "[o]pening summary judgment briefs if appropriate" by July 24, 2015, and a
pretrial conference on August 4, 2015 "if no dispositive motions are filed." Alquist Letter at 2.
These differing proposals cannot be reconciled. A telephone conference with the Court is
required. The purposes will include a determination of the boundaries, if any, of future discovery,
and a time table for future stages of litigation. Counsel are directed to confer with each other, and
agree upon a date for the conference, to be held at 2:00 p.m. on either July 7 or 10. Counsel should
convey the chosen date to the Court, and arrange for the attendance of a court stenographer at one
of their offices, so that a transcript of the teleconference may be made.
It is SO ORDERED.

1

Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man, Epistle I, l. 95.
2

Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
June 17, 2014

/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

3