Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al

Filing 278

Proposed Pretrial Order by J. L. Albert, Mark P. Becker, Kenneth R. Bernard, Jr, Cambridge University Press, Larry R. Ellis, Rutledge A. Griffin, Jr, Robert F. Hatcher, C. Thomas Hopkins, Jr, W. Mansfield Jennings, Jr, James R. Jolly, Donald M. Leebern, Jr, William NeSmith, Jr, Oxford University Press, Inc., Risa Palm, Doreen Stiles Poitevint, Willis J. Potts, Jr, Neil L. Pruitt, Jr, Wanda Yancey Rodwell, Sage Publications, Inc., Nancy Seamans, Kessel Stelling, Jr, Benjamin J. Tarbutton, III, Richard L. Tucker, Larry Walker, Philip A. Wilheit, Sr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E, # 4 Exhibit F-1, # 5 Exhibit F-2, # 6 Exhibit G-1, # 7 Exhibit G-2, # 8 Exhibit G-3, # 9 Exhibit H-1, # 10 Exhibit I)(Rains, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA,
ATLANTA DIVISION

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, INC.,
and SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-1425-ODE
Plaintiffs,
Conference is requested
– vs. –
MARK P. BECKER, in his official
capacity as Georgia State University
President, et al.,
Defendants.

PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL ORDER
COME NOW Plaintiffs Cambridge University Press, Oxford University
Press, Inc., and SAGE Publications, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants
Mark P. Becker, Risa Palm, Nancy Seamans, J.L. Albert, Kenneth R. Bernard, Jr.,
Larry R. Ellis, Rutledge A. Griffin Jr., Robert F. Hatcher, C. Thomas Hopkins, Jr.,
W. Mansfield Jennings, Jr., James R. Jolly, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., William
NeSmith, Jr., Doreen Stiles Poitevint, Willis J. Potts, Jr., Neil L. Pruitt, Jr., Wanda
Yancey Rodwell, Kessel Stelling, Jr., Benjamin J. Tarbutton, III, Richard L.
Tucker, Larry Walker, and Philip A. Wilheit, Sr. (collectively “Defendants”), by
874968.1

and through their undersigned counsel, submit this Proposed Consolidated Pretrial
Order.
1.
There are no motions or other matters pending for consideration by the
Court except as noted:
Plaintiffs have filed two motions in limine: one to preclude the admission
into evidence of certain recently created fair use checklists produced by
Defendants, and one to overrule certain objections made by Defendants with
respect to Plaintiff works identified on the parties’ jointly submitted list of alleged
infringements (filed with the Court on March 15, 2011).
Defendants have filed two motions in limine: Defendants’ Motion in Limine
To Exclude Evidence Of Improperly Asserted Copyrights, and Defendants’ Motion
in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence in Accordance With Order of September
30, 2010. Also pending is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, which Defendants
presently intend to renew in accordance with the Court’s Order of March 17, 2011.

2.
All discovery has been completed, unless otherwise noted, and the Court
will not consider any further motions to compel discovery. (Refer to LR
37.1.B). Provided there is no resulting delay in readiness for trial, the parties
shall, however, be permitted to take the depositions of any persons for the
preservation of evidence and for use at trial.
874968.1

2

Plaintiffs state that pursuant to the Court’s November 5, 2010 Order, the
Defendants were directed to produce, by December 10, 2010, all available syllabi
for each course identified in Plaintiffs’ August 20, 2010 submission to the Court
and all available fair use checklists for Plaintiffs’ works used in those courses. The
parties were further instructed to provide an updated list of alleged infringements
to the Court, which they did on March 15, 2011 (“Alleged Infringement List”).
The Defendants have failed to provide checklists for at least 24 instances of alleged
infringement identified on the Alleged Infringement List. Plaintiffs have
repeatedly sought from Defendants these documents or an admission that they do
not exist. On March 4, 2011, Defendants responded to Plaintiffs’ requests stating
that they could not confirm that the documents “do not exist,” but that they can
confirm that they “have searched for relevant syllabi and responsive checklists,
syllabi and related materials, and produced all that they have found.”
Plaintiffs also note that in light of Defendants’ plan to call nearly every GSU
instructor identified on the Alleged Infringement List and Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint, not all of whom Plaintiffs have had the opportunity to depose,
Plaintiffs expect to take, prior to trial, the deposition of those instructors from
Defendants’ witness list that Plaintiffs have not previously deposed. Plaintiffs also
note that they have filed the two motions in limine described in Paragraph 1 above.
874968.1

3

*

*

*

In accordance with their March 29, 2011 offer to make as many as possible
previously undeposed professors available for a brief (1.5 hours) discovery
deposition, Defendants state that certain yet-to-be deposed professors identified on
Defendants’ witness list may be deposed prior to trial. The parties reserve the right
to submit deposition designations and counter-designations from the transcripts of
any such depositions. The parties request permission to amend or make
designations, cross-designations and objections of depositions taken since
Defendants’ March 29, 2011 offer.
3.
Unless otherwise noted, the names of the parties as shown in the caption
to this Order and the capacity in which they appear are correct and complete,
and there is no question by any party to the misjoinder or non-joinder of any
parties.
The parties agree that this statement is correct.
Plaintiffs note that the individual members of the Board of Regents are
named because Defendants identified them as necessary parties and consented to
their being named. See Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to
Amend the Complaint to Add Additional Defendants, Docket No. 33, at 2 n.1
(“The University Administrators do not oppose adding as defendants the individual

874968.1

4

members of the Board in their official capacities.”); Order, Docket No. 38 (Dec.
11, 2008).
4.
Unless otherwise noted, there is no question as to the jurisdiction of the
Court; jurisdiction is based on the following code sections:
It is Plaintiffs’ position that jurisdiction is based on the Court’s original
jurisdiction over copyright infringement claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1338. Plaintiffs seek
prospective relief from state officials in their official capacities pursuant to the Ex
parte Young exception to sovereign immunity because the Defendants have control
over and responsibility for the challenged conduct and authority to ensure
compliance with federal copyright law at GSU. Plaintiffs further submit that all
necessary copyright registrations were obtained in a timely manner, including as to
infringed works for which issue was joined for the first time in the parties’ Joint
Filing on March 15, 2011, and that the Court has full jurisdiction over this matter.
Defendants submit that there is a jurisdictional issue regarding immunity
from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and that Plaintiffs have failed to
establish jurisdiction or to meet the mandatory precondition in those instances
where Plaintiffs have not timely obtained a copyright registration, which is a

874968.1

5

precondition for bringing a claim of infringement. 17 U.S.C.§ 411(c); M.G.B.
Homes v. Ameron Homes, Inc., 903 F.2d 1486, 1488 (11th Cir. 1990).
5.
The following individually-named attorneys are hereby designated as
lead counsel for the parties:
A.

For Plaintiffs
R. Bruce Rich
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Edward B. Krugman (Georgia Bar No. 429927)
BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street NW
3900 One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

B.

For Defendants
Anthony B. Askew
(Georgia Bar No. 025300)
McKEON, MEUNIER, CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC
817 West Peachtree Street
Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

874968.1

6

Stephen M. Schaetzel
(Georgia Bar No. 628653)
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
6.
Normally, the Plaintiff is entitled to open and close arguments to the
jury. (Refer to LR 39.3(B)(2)(b). State below the reasons, if any, why the
Plaintiff should not be permitted to open arguments to the jury.
Not applicable (jury trial not requested).
7.
The captioned case shall be tried (
) to a jury or ( X ) to the court
without a jury, or ( ) the right to trial by jury is disputed.
8.
State whether the parties request that the trial to a jury be bifurcated,
i.e., that the same jury consider separately issues such as liability and
damages. State briefly the reasons why trial should or should not be
bifurcated.
Not applicable (jury trial not requested).
9.
Attached hereto as Attachment “A” and made part of this order by
reference are the questions which the parties request that the Court propound
to the jurors concerning their legal qualifications to serve.
Not applicable (jury trial not requested).
10.

874968.1

7

Attached hereto as Attachment “B-1” are the general questions which
Plaintiffs wishes to be propounded to the jurors on voir dire examination.
Attached hereto as Attachment “B-2” are the general questions which
Defendants wishes to be propounded to the jurors on voir dire examination.
The court, shall question the prospective jurors as to their address and
occupation and as to the occupation of a spouse, if any. Counsel may be
permitted to ask follow up questions on these matters. It shall not, therefore,
be necessary for counsel to submit questions regarding these matters. The
determination of whether the judge or counsel will propound general voir dire
questions is a matter of courtroom policy which shall be established by each
judge.
Not applicable (jury trial not requested).
11.
State any objections to Plaintiff’s voir dire questions.
State any objections to Defendant’s voir dire questions.
State any objections to the voir dire questions of the other parties, if
any.
Not applicable (jury trial not requested).
12.
All civil cases to be tried wholly or in party by jury shall be tried before
a jury consisting of not less than six (6) members, unless the parties stipulate
otherwise. The parties must state in the space provided below the basis for
any requests for additional strikes. Unless otherwise directed herein, each
side as a group will be allowed the number of peremptory challenges as
provided by 28 U.S.C. §1870. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 47(b).
Not applicable (jury trial not requested).
13.
State whether there is any pending related litigation. Describe briefly,
including style and civil action number.
874968.1

8

None.
14.
Attached hereto as Attachment “C” is Plaintiffs’ outline of the case
which includes a succinct factual summary of Plaintiffs’ cause of action and
which shall be neither argumentative nor recite evidence. All relevant rules,
regulations, statutes, ordinances, and illustrative case law creating a specific
legal duty relied upon by Plaintiff shall be listed under separate heading. In
negligence cases, each and every act of negligence relied upon shall be
separately listed. For each item of damage claimed, Plaintiff shall separately
provide the following information: (a) a brief description of the item claimed,
for example, pain and suffering; (b) the dollar amount claimed; and (c) a
citation to the law, rule, regulation or any decision authorizing a recovery for
that particular item of damage. Items of damage not identified in this manner
shall not be recoverable.
15.
Attached hereto as Attachment “D” is Defendant’s outline of the case
which includes a succinct factual summary of all general, special, and
affirmative defenses relied upon and which shall be neither argumentative nor
recite evidence. All relevant rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, and
illustrative case law relied upon as creating a defense shall be listed under
separate heading. For any counterclaim, the Defendant shall separately
provide the following information for each item of damage claimed: (a) a brief
description of the item claimed, for example, pain and suffering; (b) the dollar
amount claimed; and (c) a citation to the law, rule, regulation or any decision
authorizing a recovery for that particular item of damage. Items of damage
not identified in this manner shall not be recoverable.
16.
Attached hereto as Attachment “E” are the facts stipulated by the
parties. No further evidence will be required as to the facts contained in the
stipulation and the stipulation may be read into evidence at the beginning of
the trial or at such other time as is appropriate in the trial of the case. It is the
duty of counsel to cooperate fully with each other to identify all undisputed

874968.1

9

facts. A refusal to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions upon the
non-cooperating counsel.
17.
The legal issues to be tried are as follows:
For Plaintiffs:
 Whether Defendants are infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights, whether through
their own actions or, via respondeat superior, through the actions of
individuals in their employ or control or in the employ or control of Georgia
State University (GSU).
 Whether Defendants are contributorily infringing Plaintiffs’ copyrights.
 Whether the ongoing and unauthorized use of the excerpts from Plaintiffs’
copyrighted materials by Defendants or individuals in their employ or
control in conjunction with ERes and uLearn offerings is protected by the
doctrine of fair use.
 Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
For Defendants:
 Whether the case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in
accordance with the Eleventh Amendment’s prohibition against suits in

874968.1

10

federal court against Georgia state officials that have been sued in their
official capacities?
 Whether, in practice, GSU implementation of the 2009 University System of
Georgia Copyright Policy is encouraging improper application of the “fair
use” defense of 17 U.S.C. § 107 such that there is ongoing and continuous
misuse of that defense by GSU sufficient to find the Defendants liable for
direct or contributory copyright infringement?
 Whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate a sufficient number of instances of
copyright infringement to establish ongoing and continuous misuse of the
fair use defense such as to obtain the injunctive relief sought? (Defendants
note, in this regard, their motions in limine).
 Whether plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed so as to warrant injunctive
relief and whether the other tests for injunctive relief have been satisfied?
 Whether broad injunctive relief of the type apparently sought by Plaintiffs is
legally appropriate in this case?
 Whether Defendants are entitled to recover their fees and costs?

18.

874968.1

11

Attached hereto as Attachment “F-1” for the Plaintiffs and Attachment
“F-2” for the Defendants is a list of all the witnesses and their address for each
party. The list must designate the witnesses whom the party will have present
and trial and those witnesses whom the party may have present at trial.
Expert (and witnesses who might express an opinion under Rule 702),
impeachment and rebuttal witnesses whose use as a witness can be reasonably
anticipated must be included. Each party shall also attach to the list a
reasonable specific summary of the expected testimony of each expert witness.
All of the other parties may rely upon a representation by a designated
party that a witness will be present unless notice to the contrary is given ten
(10) days prior to trial to allow the other party(s) to subpoena the witness or
to obtain the witness’ testimony by other means. Witnesses who are not
included on the witness list (including expert, impeachment and rebuttal
witnesses whose use should have been reasonably anticipated) will not be
permitted to testify, unless expressly authorized by court order based upon a
showing that the failure to comply was justified.
Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ witness list – which identifies 80 witnesses
Defendants “may call” but none that Defendants “will call” – on the ground that it
does not adequately structure the issues to be considered at trial, as contemplated
by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., F.R.C.P. 16(c)(2)(A)
(court to consider “formulating and simplifying the issues, and eliminating
frivolous claims and defenses”); id. 16(c)(2)(D) (court to consider “avoiding
unnecessary proof and cumulative evidence”); see also 6A Wright, Miller & Kane,
Federal Practice & Procedure §1522 (2010). Defendants’ excessively long witness
list violates the spirit of Rule 16, which is intended to “help[] remove extraneous
disputes from the case and serve[] to expedite the determination of the merits,

874968.1

12

thereby saving time and expense for the litigants and easing the burden on the
courts by facilitating the handling of congested dockets.” Id.
Specifically, Plaintiffs object to Defendants' claimed intention to present the
testimony of 33 professors. Much of this testimony will be cumulative, and thus a
waste of judicial resources, and it is also objectionable for the other reasons stated
in Plaintiffs' Motion for Early Pretrial Conference and Memorandum in Support
filed with the Court on April 4, 2011 (Docket No. 268). Plaintiffs further object to
the proposed testimony of 17 members of the Board of Regents as cumulative and
a waste of judicial resources.
Plaintiffs further object to the proposed testimony of Kenneth Crews for the
reasons stated in their Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Kenneth D. Crews
(June 5, 2009), their Motion to Exclude the Putative Expert Testimony of Kenneth
D. Crews (Apr. 13, 2010), and the reply briefs on those motions (Docket Nos. 106,
112 202, 222).
19.
Attached hereto as Attachment “G-1” for the Plaintiffs and “G-2” for
the Defendants are the typed lists of all documentary and physical evidence
that will be tendered at trial. Learned treatises which are expected to be used
at trial shall not be admitted as exhibits. Counsel are required, however, to
identify all such treatises under a separate heading on the party’s exhibit list.

874968.1

13

Each party’s exhibits shall be numbered serially, beginning with 1, and
without the inclusion of any alphabetical or numerical subparts. Adequate
space must be left on the left margin of each party’s exhibit list for court
stamping purposes. A courtesy copy of each party’s list must be submitted for
use by the judge.
Prior to trial, counsel shall mark the exhibits as numbered on the
attached lists by affixing numbered yellow stickers to Plaintiffs’ exhibits,
numbered blue stickers to Defendants’ exhibits, and numbered white stickers
to joint exhibits. When there are multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants, the
surname of the particular Plaintiff or Defendant shall be shown above the
number on the stickers for that party’s exhibits.
Specific objections to another party’s exhibits must be typed on a
separate page and must be attached to the exhibit list of the party against
whom the objections are raised. Objections as to authenticity, privilege,
competency, and, to the extent possible, relevancy of the exhibits shall be
included. Any listed document to which an objection is not raised shall be
deemed to have been stipulated as to authenticity by the parties and shall be
admitted at trial without further proof of authenticity.
Unless otherwise noted, copies rather than originals of documentary
evidence may be used a trial. Documentary or physical exhibits may not be
submitted by counsel after filing of the pretrial order, except upon consent of
all the parties or permission of the court. Exhibits so admitted must be
numbered, inspected by counsel, and marked with stickers prior to trial.
Counsel shall familiarize themselves with all exhibits (and the
numbering thereof) prior to trial. Counsel will not be afforded time during
trial to examine exhibits that are or should have been listed.
The parties’ joint exhibit list is attached as Attachment G-3.
20.

874968.1

14

The following designated portions of the testimony of the persons listed
below may be introduced by deposition:
PLAINTIFFS
See Attachment I.

DEFENDANTS
See Attachment I.
In addition to the designations and counter-designations set forth in
Attachment I, Defendants state that the testimony of the following persons may be
introduced by deposition:
Professor Lloyd
Professor Gainty
Professor Dixon
Professor Greenberg
Professor Kruger
GSU President Becker
In addition, given Defendants accommodation of Plaintiffs’ request to
depose all professors that may be called as trial witnesses, and Plaintiffs
designation of portions of recent discovery depositions, Defendants counterdesignate the deposition of the following witness in their entireties in response to
Plaintiffs designations:
874968.1

15

Professor Murphy
Professor Freeman
Professor Ruprecht
Professor Hankla
Professor Moloney
Defendants will continue to work with Plaintiffs to delete and narrow such
testimony in advance of trial.

Further, in accordance with the Local Rules,

Defendants reserve the right to conduct testimonial depositions that do not delay
trial.
Any objections to the depositions of the foregoing persons or to any
questions or answers in the depositions shall be filed in writing no later than
the day the case is first scheduled for trial. Objections not perfected in this
manner will be deemed waived or abandoned. All depositions shall be
reviewed by counsel and all extraneous and unnecessary matter, including
non-essential colloquy of counsel, shall be deleted. Depositions, whether
preserved by stenographic means or videotape, shall not go out with the jury.
Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ intention to introduce at trial testimony from
depositions taken by Defendants prior to the entry of this Order but not designated
as part of this order. This includes the deposition testimony of Vincent Lloyd,
Denis Gainty, and Patricia Dixon (deposed April 20, 2011), Daphne Greenberg
(Deposed April 21, 2011), and Mark Becker and Ann Kruger (deposed April 22,
2011). In the event such testimony is admitted at trial, Plaintiffs reserve the right

874968.1

16

to use any part of each such deposition not introduced by Defendants. Plaintiffs
also object to Defendants’ blanket designation of entire deposition transcripts
while reserving the right to make specific designations prior to trial; this approach
fails to delete “extraneous and unnecessary matter” as required by rule and will
require Plaintiffs to review every question and answer in every such deposition for
potential objections rather than only those defendants will ultimately designate.
21.
Attached hereto as Attachments “H-1” for the Plaintiffs and “H-2” for
the Defendant are any trial briefs which counsel may wish to file containing
citations to legal authority concerning evidentiary questions and any other
legal issues which counsel anticipate will arise during the trial of the case.
Limitations, if any, regarding the format and length of trial briefs is a matter
of individual practice which shall be established by each judge.
In addition to the briefs attached hereto, the parties refer this Court to their
respective briefs submitted in connection with the motions for summary judgment.
See Docket Nos. 142, 160, 185, 201, 206, 210, 237, 241, 244. In lieu of additional
briefing, the Defendants will provide proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law in accordance with Paragraph 25 below.
Plaintiffs state that the Stipulations of Fact Regarding ERes and uLearn
Usage at Georgia State University, filed July 10, 2009 (Docket No. 118), should
become part of the trial record.

874968.1

17

22.
In the event this is a case designated for trial to the court with a jury,
requests for charge must be submitted no later than 9:30 a.m. on the date on
which the case is calendared (or specially set) for trial. Requests which are
not timely filed and which are not otherwise in compliance with LR 51.1, will
not be considered. In addition, each party should attach to the requests to
charge a short (not more than one (1) page) statement of that party’s
contentions, covering both claims and defenses, which the court may use in its
charge to the jury.
Counsel are directed to refer to the latest edition of the Eleventh Circuit
District Judges Association’s Pattern Jury Instructions and Devitt and
Blackmar’s Federal Jury Practice and Instructions in preparing the requests
to charge. For those issues not covered by the Pattern Instructions or Devitt
and Blackmar, counsel are directed to extract the applicable legal principle
(with minimum verbiage) from each cited authority.
Jury trial not requested.
23.
If counsel desire for the case to be submitted to the jury in a manner
other than upon a general verdict, the form of submission agreed to by all
counsel shall be shown in Attachment “I” to this Pretrial Order. If counsel
cannot agree on a special form of submission, parties will propose their
separate forms for the consideration of the court.
Jury trial not requested.
24.
Unless otherwise authorized by the court, arguments in all jury cases
shall be limited to one-half hour for each side. Should any party desire any
additional time for argument, the request should be noted (and explained)
herein.
Jury trial not requested.

874968.1

18

25.
If the case is designated for trial to the court without a jury, counsel are
directed to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law not later
than the opening of trial.
The parties anticipate filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
not later than the opening of trial.
Pursuant to LR 16.3, lead counsel and persons possessing settlement
authority to bind the parties met (by telephone) on February 24, 2010, to discuss in
good faith the possibility of settlement of this case. The court (_____) has or ( X )
has not discussed settlement of this case with counsel. It appears at this time that
there is:
) A good possibility of settlement.
(
(
) Some possibility of settlement.
( X ) Little possibility of settlement.
(
) No possibility of settlement.
26.
Unless otherwise noted, the Court will not consider this case for a
special setting, and it will be scheduled by the clerk in accordance with the
normal practice of the court.
27.
The Plaintiffs estimate that it will require 4-6 days to present their
evidence. The Defendants estimate that it will require 7-9 days to present
their evidence. It is estimated that the total trial time is 11-15 days.
28.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above constitutes the pretrial order
for the above captioned case (__x__) submitted by stipulation of the parties or
(_____) approved by the court after conference with the parties.

874968.1

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the foregoing, including the
attachments thereto, constitutes the pretrial order in the above case and that
it supersedes the pleadings which are hereby amended to conform hereto and
that this pretrial order shall not be amended except by Order of the court to
prevent manifest injustice. Any attempt to reserve a right to amend or add to
any part of the pretrial order after the pretrial order has been filed shall be
invalid and of not effect and shall not be binding upon any party or the court,
unless specifically authorized in writing by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of May, 2011.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Each of the undersigned counsel for the parties hereby consents to the entry of the
foregoing pretrial order, which has been prepared in accordance with the form
pretrial order adopted by this Court.
/s/ John H. Rains IV
Edward B. Krugman
Georgia Bar No. 429927
John H. Rains IV
Georgia Bar No. 556052
BONDURANT, MIXSON &
ELMORE, LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street NW
Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30309

/s/ Stephen M. Schaetzel
Stephen M. Schaetzel
Georgia Bar No. 628653
KING & SPALDING, LLP
1180 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
[phone]

R. Bruce Rich (pro hac vice)
Randi Singer (pro hac vice)
Jonathan Bloom (pro hac vice)
Todd D. Larson (pro hac vice)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Anthony B. Askew
Georgia Bar No. 025300
McKEON, MEUNIER,
CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC
817 West Peachtree Street
Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: [phone]

874968.1

20

Katrina M. Quicker
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
Suite 1000
999 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for the Defendants

874968.1

21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day filed the foregoing PROPOSED
CONSOLIDATED PRETRIAL ORDER with the Clerk of Court using the
CM/ECF filing system which will send e-mail notification of such filing to
opposing counsel as follows:
Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq.
Kristen A. Swift, Esq.
C. Suzanne Johnson, Esq.
KING & SPALDING
1180 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Katrina M. Quicker, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Anthony B. Askew
McKEON, MEUNIER, CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC
817 West Peachtree Street
Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30308
Mary Jo Volkert, Esq.
Assistant S. Attorney General
40 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
This 29th day of April, 2011.
/s/ John H. Rains IV
John H. Rains IV
Georgia Bar No. 556052
874968.1

22