Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al

Filing 154

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion to Compel Search Terms; granting in part and finding moot in part 110 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories 4, 5, 7; granting 120 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Surreply; granting in part and denying in part 143 Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Pretrial Order. Dispositive motion deadline extended to 5/15/2007. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 5:00 PM on 5/7/2007. Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/9/2007 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 04/03/2007. (mts)

Download PDF
Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al Doc. 154 Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL Document 154 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP, Plaintiff, v. VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP., et al., Defendants. ORDER A status conference was held in this matter on April 2, 2007. Plaintiff appeared through counsel Trent Webb, Adam Seitz, and Eric Buresh. Defendant s appeared through counsel Donald McPhail, Barry Golob and Patrick Kaine. Pursuant to discussion at the conference, the Court hereby enters the following order: 1. The parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Pretrial Order (doc. 143) is granted to the extent that a. The April 13, 2007 pretrial conference is reset to 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 and the jointly proposed pretrial order shall be submitted directly to chambers by e-mail no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 2007. The May 9, 2007 pretrial conference will be held by telephone unless the judge determines that the proposed Pretrial Order is not in the appropriate format or that there are other problems requiring counsel to appear in person. If that determination is made the final pretrial conference will be held in Room #223, Robert J. Dole United States Courthouse, 500 State Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas. The April 30, 2007 dispositive motion deadline is extended to May 15, 2007. All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order, as amended, including but not limited to the September 4, 2007 trial setting, shall remain in full force and effect. Case No. 05-2433-JWL-DJW b. c. d. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL Document 154 Filed 04/03/2007 Page 2 of 2 2. Vonage's Motion to Compel Sprint to Identify Search Terms (doc. 107) is a. Denied to the extent that Sprint will not be required to identify the search terms it used to respond to Vonage's discovery requests; and Granted to the extent that counsel are hereby ordered to meet and confer within the next seven (7) days to develop a mutually agreed-upon search protocol with regard to information and documents Vonage allege exists but cannot be found by Sprint. b. 3. Sprint's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Surreply (doc. 120) is granted pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.4. Sprint's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories 4, 5 and 7 (doc. 110) is a. Moot with regard to Interrogatories 5 and 7 based on an agreement by Vonage to supplement its interrogatory answers to incorporate by reference expert reports recently produced; and Granted with respect to Interrogatory 4 to the extent that Vonage shall be required to supplement this interrogatory answer C 4. b. to specifically identify where (in pleadings previously submitted) Vonage has provided factual information or documents supporting Vonage's contention that the alleged acts of infringement have not been willful; supplement this factual information or provide supplemental documentation, if necessary; and certify that no further non-privileged responsive information or documents exist. C C IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 3rd day of April, 2007. s/ David J. Waxse David J. Waxse Unit ed States Magistrate Judge cc: All counsel and pro se parties 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?