Trujillo v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al

Filing 294

Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 115-2

Filed 06/16/08 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 115-2

Filed 06/16/08 Page 2 of 5

,,'o

z

r N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ]LLINOIS WESTERN DTVTSION
M I D W E S T ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., et dI.,

Docket No. 05 C 50023 Rockford, Illinois Friday, August L9, 2005 2 : 3 0 o ' c l o c k p .m .

4

Pl-aintif f s,
5
V-

6 7
d

T N T E R N A T T O N A L UNTON OF O P E R A T T N G ENGINEERS LOCAL 150 AFL-CIO, et dI. ,

Defendants.
9 10 11 t2 13 L4 15 APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiffs: S M E T A N A & AVAKIAN (39 S. LaSalle Street, surc.e rzL6, 50503) by Chicago, IL M R . GERARD C. SMETANA M C GREEVY, .]OHNSON & WILLIAMS (6735 Vistagreen Way, Rockford, IL 5L107) by M R . CHRISTOPHER J. COCOMA T R A N S C R I P T OF P R O C E E D I N G S B E F O R E THE HONORABLE P . MICHAEL MAHONEY

T7

For t.he Def endants:
I.'

L9 20
lanrrrtDannrf ar .

L O C A L 150 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (6140 Jo1iet Road, 50525) by Count.ryside, IL MR. DALE D. PIERSON R. KISER M R . CHARI-.,ES M a r y T. Lindbloom 2II South Court Street Rockford, Illinois 61101 (81s) 987-4486

2I 22 23 24 25

Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 115-2

Filed 06/16/08 Page 3 of 5
11

1 2 3 4 5

discovery, next time

okay? and just

Why at enter

t.his

point

shouldn't

I

bring

you

back

a CMO? we should, Judge, because then of

MR. PIERSON: I think
.)np
i-he

nf
nri

fhe
errv

nrgllems
}/!!

that

we've had 1s in

deposing certain

nr:i na1 g

T H E COURT: Thev want t.o limit MR. PIERSON: Riqht.
I 9 10 11 L2

it?

THE COURT: Riqht. MR. PIERSON: We're noL getting THE COURT: A11 right. MR. PIERSON: Okav. THE COURT: Isn't all so long it to get that. right? I mean, it's taking you I got to damage information. it.. I got it..

,I

I5

up t.here for

a preliminar,y is just not

injunction an efficient should do is for way next a

1A

hearing, to

seems to me that. this lawsuit you in at this point,

15

run this bring

and what I t.his

t , i m e in
L7
I6

for

a CMO and get

thing

ready

fu1l

scale trial. M R . SMETANA: Your Honor, with regard to the and

L'

preliminary

injunction there

issues,

ds I

indicat,ed

at. t.he outset for

zv

have throughout, will

are three injunctive

essent.ial relief. and that

areas One of is

which we the

2I 22 23

seek preliminary Pierson

t.hem is

one t.hat. Mr. issues.

addressed,

t.he police

power has to the the ti-me

We have real1y

defended most of their

it. because that with regard

io

24 25

been the general employees that

scope of

d.epositions

were followed.

They have also

utilized

Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 115-2
qo to

Filed 06/16/08 Page 4 of 5
L2

1

in

areas that

the merits

on the when will you be ready for a

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 L2 13 L4 15 L6 L7 18 L9
ZU

THE COURT: Counsel, preliminary injunction

hearing? sometime after I've asked for the 30 to

M R . SMETANA: I would hope that next days. finish dj-scovery It cutoff, which would be

may not

encompass --

we may have to but

have more time

up these

third-party

subpoenas,

I would hope if I were cut.off but to also a

T H E COURT: Then you would have no objection to pull as far set you back within as the preliminary of the 30 days, extend, fact is for discovery 30 days,

injuncLion init.ial

up a renewal

pretrial

conference

enter

C M Oa s f a r

as the qeneral

case is

concerned? to see that six weeks we As

MR. SMETANA: I would like hence, will I your Honor, to

see where we are because for preliminary at least

I know that relief.

be filing part to of

a motion the

injunct.ive

say,

depositions,

a number of relief

them, go

directly

t.he preliminary

injunctive

because one of relief is of the

t.he areas on which we seek preliminary target opinion information. That also is

injunctive of

a source

difference complaint. we're

between us on amendments to our So, if it turns file out out we get the

initial

2t 22 23 24 25 seeking, issue. me t.hat,

information injunction injunct.ive does not

then we'11 If it turns

the preliminary the preliminary

on that, pardon support we have,

t.he discovery which

information

we receive

I doubt very

much based on the

information

Case 1:07-cv-04946 Document 115-2

Filed 06/16/08 Page 5 of 5
13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Y

t . h e n we will case out of diminishes

amend our it. It

complaint.

t.o drop

that. portion It

of

the

doesn't

diminish of

the case. trade. acti-vity

certainly

one area of j \ n d the third

restraint is

the ongoing

of the

Operating restraints we're

Engineers by going seeking
re!

Locaf, 150 throughout to third-party

here continuing not

neut.rals

the ones that neutrals
Of our

information
+rrY

from,
vuprrruue

ot.her third-part.y
/

'inr-arfarina

.jj3[

our

bUSiness,

tL hr ve r

buSinesS
vuprrrvup

plaintif

fS,

and that injunctive
{-naal-har

will

be one of

t.he subjects either

of

the preliminary i-nformation have to that

10 11 L2 13
1A

relief.

We will

have that

i ? L e g e L r r e r r -n r . rJ 0 d a y s b y w a y o f

affidavit,

or we will in the

not,ice iL's point

deposi-tions fully

of

those

third-parties And I can't

event

not

cooperated.

speak to say six of of

that. at this

a hundred percent.

That's

why I

weeks. 30 days, unless up the

15

I would hope that. after we need more time for the limited

t.he cutoff purpose about,

finishing

t7 18 19 zu 2L
zz

materials fiting

Mr. Cocoma is for

talking

then

I would propose briefing that.,

our motion

preliminary for the that cutoff, at

injunction, that. time, your Honor.

and setting that take

a hearing

buL I would do So, that would

two weeks after us into

the middle

of October. about. six months after Lhe filing

THE COURT: Which is of the complaint. MR. SMETANA: WelI, because of anything we've it

23 24 25

has developed We have not

t.hat wdy, but been ab1e to

not

done.