Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. GL Consultants, Inc et al

Filing 305

WRITTEN Opinion: STATUS AND MOTION HEARING HELD. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court, and as summarized below: (1) denies plaintiff's motion for jurisdictional discovery ( #300 in 05 C 4120) as moot; (2) grants plaintiff's motion to file an opposition in excess of 15 pages ( #303 in 05 C 4120); (3) denies without prejudice as moot plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents and things and responses to interrogatories ( #298 in 05 C 4120 and #173 in 05 C 5164); (4) sets a briefing schedule on the motion for protective order modification ( #284 in 05 C 4120); (5) by separate order, establishes a procedure that the parties must follow for filing motions relating to discovery; and (6) sets a discovery schedule. The matter is set for a status hearing with the magistrate judge on 12/01/10 at 10:00 a.m. By the close of business on 11/24/10, the parties shall submit a joint agenda of matters they wish to address at the status hearing. (For further details see written opinion). Signed by the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier on 10/20/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, )

Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. GL Consultants, Inc et al
Order Form (01/2005)

Doc. 305

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

Joan B. Gottschall 05 C 4120 and 05 C 5164

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

Sidney I. Schenkier 10/20/2010

CASE NUMBER CASE TITLE

DATE

Trading Technologies International, Inc. vs. GL Consultants, Inc. et al and Trading Technologies International, Inc. vs. FuturePath Trading LLC

D O C K E T ENTRY TEXT

STATUS AND MOTION HEARING HELD. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court, and as summarized below: (1) denies plaintiff's motion for jurisdictional discovery (doc. # 300 in 05 C 4120) as moot; (2) grants plaintiff's motion to file an opposition in excess of 15 pages (doc. # 303 in 05 C 4120); (3) denies without prejudice as moot plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents and things and responses to interrogatories (doc. # 298 in 05 C 4120 and doc. # 173 in 05 C 5164); (4) sets a briefing schedule on the motion for protective order modification (doc. # 284 in 05 C 4120); (5) by separate order, establishes a procedure that the parties must follow for filing motions relating to discovery; and (6) sets a discovery schedule. The matter is set for a status hearing with the magistrate judge on 12/01/10 at 10:00 a.m. By the close of business on 11/24/10, the parties shall submit a joint agenda of matters they wish to address at the status hearing.

O[ For further details see text below.]
01:10

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
1. W e deny the m o tio n for jurisdictional discovery as m o o t, in light of the representation of counsel for the relevant GL p a r t i e s that they plan to withdraw the m o tio n to dism is s for lack of personal jurisdiction that is presently pending before J u d g e Gottschall in 05 C 4120 (see doc. # 265), as they have done in the 10 C 716 case pending before Judge Pallm e ye r ( d o c . # 78). 2. W e deny without prejudice the m o t i o n to com p e l production of docum e n ts and things, and responses to in te r r o g a to r ie s (doc. # 298 in 05 C 4120 and doc. # 173 in 05 C 5164), and direct the parties to use the procedures for filing d is c o v e r y m o tio n s that the Court has put into place today. Solely for purposes of the dispute raised in this m o tio n to com p e l, w e will m o d if y the procedures as follows: (a) the parties are not required to exchange letters concerning their dispute; (b) th e parties shall m e e t and confer concerning the dispute by 10/27/2010; (c) the parties shall prepare a joint statem e n t of th e ir m e e t and confer by 11/01/2010; and (d) any m o tio n to com p e l shall be filed by 11/08/10. The m e e t and confer, the j o in t statem e n t, and any m o tio n shall com p ly with all other aspects of the procedures. 3. W ith respect to the pending m o tio n for protective order am e n d m e n t (doc. # 284 in 05 C 4120), defendants shall f ile their reply m e m o r a n d u m by 11/03/10. The reply shall not exceed 15 pages, double spaced and with 12-point font. The r e p ly need not address law of the case or whether "exceptional circum s ta n c e s " are needed to am e n d the protective order, a n d need not address m a tte r s raised in the m o tio n to disqualify counsel that is pending before Judge Pallm e ye r in 10 C 716 ( d o c . # 73) and that is noticed for presentm e n t before Judge Gottschall in 05 C 4120 (doc. # 293). Once the m o tio n is fully b r ie f e d , the Court will rule by m a il unless it advises the parties that there will be oral argum e n t.

0 5 C 4 1 2 0 Trading Technologies International, Inc. vs. GL Consultants, Inc. et al and 05C5164 Trading Technologies International, Inc. v s . FuturePath Trading LLC P a g e 1 of 2

Dockets.Justia.com

STATEMENT
4. T h e Court sets the following schedule for discovery in 05 C 4120 and 05 C 5164: A, B. C. 1 2 /1 7 /2 0 1 0 : 0 1 /1 4 /2 0 1 1 : 0 2 /2 5 /2 0 1 1 : D e a d lin e for parties to seek additional claim construction hearing. D e a d lin e for am e n d m e n t of pleadings. D e a d lin e for defendants to state whether they will assert advice of counsel as a defense to the claim of willful infringem e n t, and if they assert advice of counsel, to produce docum e n ts relevant to that assertion. D e a d lin e for com p le tio n of all non-retained expert fact discovery. As explained on the record, discovery shall address issues of alleged infringem e n t and dam a g e s , and each party m a y pursue deposition discovery -- but not docum e n t discovery -- as to the f o llo w in g alleged item s of prior art: NYSE, SW X , AMEX Option Display, '999 patent and ePit, W it Capital Digital Stock Marketing System , Osaka, '501 and '031 patents, DTB (Xetra Platform ) , CME (Globex 1 and 2), Intex and OM (Click Trade). Each side is lim ite d to no m o r e than a total of 20 depositions with respect to these alleged item s of prior art. This lim ita tio n does not preclude additional depositions on infringem e n t and dam a g e s . The Court overrules defendants' request for further discovery on other alleged item s of prior art, and for further discovery on double patenting, invalidity under Section 112, and unenforceability due to alleged fraud and/or inequitable conduct before the PTO. D e a d lin e to serve expert disclosures and Rule 26(a)(2) reports on any issue on which a party has the burden of proof. D e a d lin e to serve rebuttal expert disclosures and Rule 26(a)(2) reports. D e a d lin e to com p le te retained expert depositions.

D.

0 4 /2 9 /2 0 1 1 :

E.

0 5 /2 7 /2 0 1 1 :

F. G.

0 6 /2 4 /2 0 1 1 : 0 7 /2 2 /2 0 1 1 :

0 5 C 4 1 2 0 Trading Technologies International, Inc. vs. GL Consultants, Inc. et al and 05C5164 Trading Technologies International, Inc. v s . FuturePath Trading LLC P a g e 2 of 2