SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Taizhou Tool-Bar Machinery Co., Ltd.

Filing 22

ORDER granting 21 AMENDED STIPULATED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER. Discovery due by 8/16/2025. Motions due by 9/15/2025. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/15/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 3/6/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
STEVEN A. CALOIARO
Nevada Bar No. 12344
100 W. Liberty Street, Suite 940
Reno, Nevada 89501
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
KEVIN D. EVERAGE
Nevada Bar No. 15913
3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 800
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

9
10

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SATA GmbH & Co. KG

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12
13
14

SATA GmbH & Co. KG, a German
Corporation,
Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19

v.
Taizhou Tool-Bar Machinery Co., Ltd., a
Chinese company,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:24-cv-02069-CDS-DJA
AMENDED STIPULATED DISCOVERY
PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER
SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW
REQUESTED

20

Under Fed. R. of Civ. P. 26(f), Local Rule 26-1, et seq., and in view of the Court’s minute

21

order issued on February 24, 2025 (ECF No. 20), Plaintiff SATA GmbH & Co. KG (“SATA”) and

22

Defendant Taizhou Tool-Bar Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Tool-Bar”) (together, the “Parties”), by and

23

through their respective attorneys of record, hereby submit this Amended Stipulated Discovery

24

Plan and Scheduling Order.

25

Date of Conference and Appearances of Counsel:

26

The Parties held a Rule 26(f) Conference via videoconference on February 18, 2025 (the

27

“Conference”). In attendance on behalf of SATA was Kevin D. Everage of Dickinson Wright

28
1

1

PLLC. In attendance on behalf of Tool-Bar were Amber N. Davis and Jefferson C. Deery of

2

Wolter Van Dyke Davis, PLLC. A further conference was held on March 5, 2025, to address the

3

Court’s minute order (ECF No. 20). In attendance on behalf of SATA was Kevin D. Everage of

4

Dickinson Wright PLLC. In attendance on behalf of Tool-Bar was Amber N. Davis of Wolter Van

5

Dyke Davis, PLLC.

6

Initial Disclosures:

7

The Parties will serve Initial Disclosures under Rule 26(a) on or before March 10, 2025.

8

Discovery Plan:

9

The Parties agree that discovery may be conducted on all matters relevant to the issues

10

raised by the pleadings and all matters otherwise within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) and not

11

protected from disclosure. Pursuant to LR 26-1(b)(1), the Parties state that the first defendant

12

answered or otherwise appeared on December 19, 2024 upon the filing of Tool-Bar’s Motion to

13

Dismiss (ECF No. 9). The proposed schedule is as follows:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Event
Deadline to Serve Initial
Disclosures
(FRCP 26(a)(1))
Amended Joint Stipulated
Discovery Plan & Scheduling
Order
(LR 26-1(a))
Deadline to Amend
Pleadings/Parties
(LR 26-1(b)(2))
Discovery Cut-Off Date
(LR 26-1(b)(1)
Expert Disclosures
(FRCP 26(a)(2) and LR
26(1)(b)(3))
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
(FRCP 26(a)(2) and LR
26(1)(b)(3))
Dispositive Motion Deadline
(LR 26-1(b)(4))

Time Frame

Date

14 days after Minute Order
(ECF 20)

March 10, 2025

Per Court Order (ECF No.
20)

March 7, 2025

90 days before Discovery
Cut-Off Date

May 19, 2025

240 days after 1st
Defendant’s appearance

August 16, 2025

60 days before Discovery
Cut-Off Date

June 17, 2025

30 days after Expert
Disclosures

July 17, 2025

30 days after Discovery Cut- September 15, 2026
Off Date

27
28
2

1

Event

Time Frame

Date

2

Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial
Disclosures & Objections
(FRCP 26(a)(3) and (LR
26(1)(b)(5) & (6))

Within 30 days after
Dispositive Motion
Deadline OR 30 days after
Order on Dispositive
Motions (if filed)

October 15, 2025 OR 30
days after Order on
Dispositive Motions (if
filed)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Trial

TBD
Special Scheduling Review:
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b)(1), the defendant appeared and responded to the

complaint on December 19, 2024. However, the Parties agree that a discovery period longer than
one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the response is required in this matter because
the Parties must retain and depose experts on highly-technical issues and analysis relevant to the
Parties’ claims and defenses in a trademark/trade dress infringement suit, particularly as it relates
to analysis of the trademark functionality issue the Parties are already disputing in their briefs on
Tool-Bar’s motion to dismiss. See, ECF Nos. 9, 16, and 17.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b)(7), the Parties certify that they met and conferred about
the possibility of using alternative dispute-resolution processes. The parties expressed mutual
interest in mediation at a later time.
Alternative Forms of Case Disposition
Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b)(8), the Parties certify that they met and conferred to
consider consent to trial by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73
and the use of the Short Trial Program (General Order 2013-01).The parties do not consent to a
trial by a magistrate judge.
Electronic Evidence
Jury trial has been demanded. Pursuant to Local Rule 26-1(b)(9), the Parties certify that
they discussed whether they intend to present evidence in electronic format to jurors for the
purposes of jury deliberations. The Parties mutually intend to present evidence to jurors for the
purposes of jury deliberations, and will do so in compliance with the electronic format and other

28
3

1
2
3

requirements for the court’s electronic jury evidence display system.
Other Planning or Discovery Orders:
a.

Protective Order and ESI Order: The Parties plan to file a proposed

4

protective order and a proposed order governing the discovery of

5

electrically stored information (ESI) for entry by the Court.

6
7

b.

Consent to electronic service: Both Parties consent to electronic service
in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E).

8
9

DATED: March 5, 2025

DATED: March 5, 2025

10

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

LEX TECNICA LTD.

11

/s/ Kevin D. Everage
STEVEN A. CALOIARO
Nevada Bar No. 12344
100 W. Liberty Street, Suite 940
Reno, Nevada 89501
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

/s/ Amber N. Davis
F. CHRISTOPHER AUSTIN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6559
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
Tel.: [phone]
[e-mail]

KEVIN D. EVERAGE
Nevada Bar No. 15913
3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 800
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

WOLTER VAN DYKE DAVIS, PLLC
AMBER N. DAVIS (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Jefferson C. Deery (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
1900 Summit Tower Blvd. STE 140
Orlando, Florida 32810
Tel.: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SATA GmbH & Co. KG

Attorneys
for
Defendant
Taizhou Tool-Bar Machinery Co., Ltd.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED:

25
26
27

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED: 3/6/2025

28
4