Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 320

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David Folsom : Scheduling Conference and Motion Hearing held on 10/19/2006. (Court Reporter Libby Crawford.) (mrm, )

Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Doc. 320

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 320

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Judge David Folsom DATATREASURY CORPORATION )( )( V. )( CIVIL NO. 2:06CV72 )( WELLS FARGO )( ________________________________________________________________________ ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS: Ed Hohn; Rodney Cooper; Ed Chin; Anthony Bruster; Karl Rupp Robert Parker; Sam Baxter; Tom Melsheimer; Brett Johnson David Keyzer & Jonathan Hardt Mel Martin

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS:

LAW CLERK: COURTROOM DEPUTY:

COURT REPORTER: Libby Crawford _________________________________________________________________________ SCHEDULING CONFERENCE October 19, 2006 @ 1:00 p.m. OPEN: 1:03 ADJOURN: 2:01 _________________________________________________________________________ 1:03 1:03 ct opens; ct/ add ptys group that wanted to call in has not; and we need to get started so that Judge Ward can continue with his trial; Baxter/ I will your honor ct/ will discuss matters I don't agree with; 10 mins for each side on motion; Hohn/ approach the podium ct/ management issues; trial plan

1:03 1:03 1:04 1:04

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 320

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 2 of 7

1:05 1:06

Hohn/ add the ct; thinks ct/ add group that is attending by phone and will allow to e-mail a list of who was involved via phone; Hohn/ argues motion ct/ all deposition hrs will be counted against time allotted; Hohn/ 200 per dft Johnson/ for Fish & Richardson; ct/ will take these up by groups, ct will entertain additional hrs Hohn/ don't mind doing discovery but don't want it coming out of the 200 ct/ talk in how many hrs you want, it will count against your hours Hohn/ we will need 250 hrs Johnson/ 6,000 hrs; consolidated everyone's views; 6,000 hrs is ridiculously...; 1:11 expert sharing; ct/ not enough experts; different issue on how we approach the trial Johnson/ 150 hrs ct/ will give 175 hrs per litigation group; don't use all that time and then think you will file a motion for additional time; includes all depositions; talk in more detail 10 hrs per expert and 30(b)6; Hohn/ request for admissions; Johnson/ have proposed 100; ct/ that is too low; Johnson/ address' the ct; ct/ start with a group of no more than 500; Johnson/ 500 rfa's per litigant group; Hohn/ special master; Danny Williams;

1:07 1:07 1:07 1:08 1:08 1:09 1:09 1:09 1:10

1:11 1:11 1:11

1:12 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:17

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 320

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 3 of 7

1:17 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:19 1:19 1:19 1:19 1:20

ct/ in terms of SM one for discovery and one as a Technical Advisor; Hohn/ same person ct/ talking in terms of 2 individuals; Parker/ should be split; ct/ tend to agree; Hohn/ just adding cost ct/ looking around and nobody particular concerned with adding cost; Parker/ we have a problem with Danny Williams; ct/ not talking in terms of who it is going to be; meet and confer on these issues and work through it; and ct will adopt choice of ptys; if you can't agree then ct will choose; conflicts issue; how much time needed to meet and confer about this process, can this be done in a couple of weeks; Parker/ can be done this afternoon; Hohn/ 48 hrs ct/ if you can't agree determine selection if they have a conflict, you 2 gentlemen report to me directly if you are able to agree; within a week or so; Hohn/ issue deposition protocol; ct/ do ptys continue to work on that; Hohn/ responds, this is where we are; ct/ not suggested in report and may need some time to give thought to this issue Johnson/ responds ct/ can't imagine ptys trying to coordinating everybody being available for depositions; Johnson/ responds; ct/ need to be some tweaking on standard limitation re: expert time; ptys will need to work some more on this issue; we will come back to this topic;

1:21 1:21 1:21

1:22 1:22 1:22 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:24

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 320

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 4 of 7

1:24 1:24

Hohn/ responds ct/ number of lawyers; doesn't necessarily mean that can happen; SM assisting with discovery may need to assist on deposition times and working through those; Hohn/ limitation of claims; ct/ see it difficult to go forward with 200 asserted claims; wrong with dfts proposal, 50 asserted claims; Hohn/ nothing and we have done it with every dft so far; narrow claims after discovery; Parker/ grant motion to stay you get rid of 93 claims right there; ct/ tough time convincing me on one without the other; Parker/ failed before; ct/ time left; what ptys have thought of actual trial of this case; Johnson/ proposed a pre, pre-trial conference in the Summer of `08; ct/ try first group in October of `08; why didn't ptys think in terms of March '08 Hohn/ we did; Johnson/ responds; ct/ we have one set here in March; those have a way of changing; Johnson/ responds; ct/ that was to be done by November 29th; Hohn/ we will have it done by 11/29th ct/ limit to 50 asserted claims by 11/29th; Hohn/ different issue; ct/ when does that take place, the 50 Johnson/ end of November; ct/ understand dfts proposal they limit themselves to 50 asserted claims and then March

1:25 1:25

1:26 1:27 1:27 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:31 1:31 1:31 1:31

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 320

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 5 of 7

they narrow to 10 1:32 1:32 1:32 1:32 1:33 1:33 1:33 1:33 1:33 1:34 Johnson/ for each litigant group ct/ each litigant group, I understand; what has been done by way of disclosure Hohn/ just getting going on that; ct/ assume that I am going to limit you what would be a reasonable time; Hohn/ 3 mos after we get their documents ct/ what is so unreasonable about that Johnson/ responds ct/ spirit of cooperation Johnson/ evaporates at key times; 50 claims is a large number ct/ sever out those unless ptys can agree to some stipulation; can explore at a later date; claims involved in Polycom case; Baxter/ don't remember; ct/ what other areas other than stay issue Hohn/ e-discovery; Johnson/ we will be able to work through that in the next week or two; ct/ much thought to trial plan; how cases are going to be broken up; Hohn/ common factor; ct/ doesn't have to be decided now; we need to make a decision who is going to be tried and in what order; Johnson/ we don't agree with organizing principal; ct/ luxury of time on this issue; number of pending motions; Melsheimer/ add the ct; ct/ local rule that you have got to make disclosure even if there is a pending motion;

1:34 1:34 1:34 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:37

1:37 1:38 1:38 1:39

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 320

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 6 of 7

1:39 1:39 1:40 1:41 1:41 1:42 1:42 1:43 1:43 1:43

Johnson/ took place about 10 days ago; Bruster/address the ct; Johnson/ administrative matter; ct/ no reason why that can't be done; Hohn/ trouble getting stuff that they did with court reporters and videographers; Johnson/ list ct/ they just said a list and don't see a problem with that; Hohn/ will go forward on motion; ct/ add ptys; Parker/ argues motion, conferred with Mr. Baxter and in agreement; speak today for the defense group; ct/ heart of the issue; opportunity to see order entered in Antor; Parker/ argues motion; ct/ can limit claim reduction; Ballard group; clients want both of best worlds; Parker/ continues with motion; obviously some settlements; Baxter/ argues motion, a little different from Antor; ct/ response; Rupp/ responds to motion; Parker/ mention one other thing; ct/ yes you may; Parker/ extend opportunity to dfts to reassert it; ct/ reasonable; claim construction suggested date is agreeable for my docket; 9/24/07; how long needed for claim construction; Hohn/ one day is plenty;

1:44 1:44 1:46 1:47 1:48 1:52 1:52 1:57 1:57 1:57 1:57

1:58

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 320

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 7 of 7

1:58 1:59 1:59

ct/ limiting term that are construed and no case authority on that; Johnson/ 2 days; ct/ we will set aside 2 days; report back within a week on SM and TA; order next week on stay; approach issue on asserted claims; Rupp/ carve out issue on asserted claims; ct/ plan to have order out on stay issue next week and that will give everybody some guidance; any other matters; recess;

1:59 2:00

2:01