SignalQuest, Inc. v. Chou et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting 32 Motion for Pre-Markman Hearing Mediation and Limited Pre-Mediation Discovery. Deadlines as outlined. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SignalQuest, Inc.
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-392-JL

Tien-Ming Chou and Oncque
Corporation
ORDER
At the Preliminary Pretrial Conference, defendants agreed in
principle to mediate following limited preliminary discovery.
The court accordingly ordered the parties to submit a joint plan
for limited discovery by August 3, 2012.
2012.

See Order of July 13,

Plaintiff appears to have made a good-faith effort to

comply with that order.

Defendants plainly have not.

Although

defendants assert that plaintiff’s proposal is "not workable,"
they have proffered no alternative, “workable” plan and no reason
for reneging on their prior agreement.1
For the reasons discussed at the Preliminary Pretrial
Conference, and those set forth in the plaintiff’s motion, the
court believes that (defendants’ objections notwithstanding) a
period of limited discovery and mediation would reduce costs and
1

Because of what it perceived as a lack of “enthusiasm” on
the part of one member of defendants’ legal team for this
approach, the court asked--repeatedly--whether the defendants
were agreeing to it in earnest, or merely temporarily placating
the court with no real intent to follow through. The lack of any
explanation for why the plaintiff’s proposal is “unworkable,” or
any proposed alternative, does little to alleviate the court’s
concerns in this regard.

facilitate the orderly and expeditious disposition of this
matter.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Pre-Markman Hearing Mediation and

Limited Pre-Mediation Discovery (document no. 32) is therefore
GRANTED.

As defendants have failed to submit an alternative to

plaintiff’s proposal, the court adopts that proposal, with
alterations, as follows:
•

On or before October 5, 2012, the parties will exchange: (1)
plans and specifications for their respective allegedly
infringing products; and (2) a statement of the reasons why
the disclosing party contends that its products do not
infringe the other party’s patent(s), including a claim
chart illustrating non-infringement of claims.

•

On or before November 2, 2012, the parties may depose the
inventors of the patents in suit.2

•

On or before December 31, 2012, the parties will engage in
mediation at a mutually agreed-upon time and location. If
the parties are unable to agree upon a location for the
mediation, it will be held at the offices of McLane, Graf
Raulerson & Middleton in Manchester, New Hampshire.

•

On or before January 4, 2013, the parties will notify the
court of the results of their mediation. If mediation is
unsuccessful, the court will schedule a status conference to
set remaining case deadlines.

The court assumes that the parties will be able to select a
mutually-agreeable mediator.

If they are unable to do so, they

may seek the court’s assistance in selecting a mediator.

2

The court notes that, contrary to defendants’ protests, the
plaintiff’s proposal does not mandate that these depositions take
place in any particular place. Nor does this order.
2

The parties are reminded that this court’s informal
discovery dispute resolution process, see Order of July 13, 2012,
applies to the preliminary discovery envisioned by this order.
SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated: August 9, 2012
cc:

Brian David Thomas, Esq.
Peter Anthony Nieves, Esq.
Robert R. Lucic, Esq.
Thomas J. Donovan, Esq.
Nicholas F. Casolaro, Esq.
Timothy N. Trop, Esq.

3