Scientific-Atlanta, Inc et al v. Forgent Networks, Inc.
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Leonard Davis : Motion Hearing held on 11/8/2005 re 7 MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Motion To Transfer filed by Forgent Networks, Inc.,, Scheduling Conference held on 11/8/2005. (Court Reporter Shea Sloan.) (rlf, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/8/2005 (rlf, ).
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc et al v. Forgent Networks, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL & TYLER DIVISIONS
DATE: November 8, 2005 JUDGE LEONARD DAVIS
F O R G E N T NETW O R K S v s. E C H O S T A R COM M U N I C A T I O N S CORP., e t al SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC. vs. M O T O R O L A , INC., et al
REPORTER: Shea Sloan LAW CLERK: Joe Price, Andrea Houston
CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:05-CV-318 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE & M O T I O N HEARING ( D K T # 51)
C I V I L ACTION NO: 6:05-CV-343 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE & M O T I O N HEARING ( D K T #7)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
C a s e No. 205cv318 G r e g o r y M Luck T h o m a s Sankey M ik e McLemore M i c h a e l Smith C a r l Roth J a im e Stephens, Corporate Rep. For Forgent C a s e No. 605cv343 A n g e la James D e r o n Dacus For Scientific-Atlanta
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
M e lv i n W i l c o x C h a r l e s Barquist H a r o l d McElhinny For Echostar Defendants L a n c e Lee M a r s h a Mullin V ic to r Savikas J o h n Crook, Corporate Rep. For Direct TV D e r o n Dacus T r e y Yarborough J o h n Howell A n g e la James For Charter Com m u n i c a t io n s , Inc. & ScientificAtlanta M ik e Jones A lle n Gardner B r ia n Erickson W a y n e Harding For Motorola, Cox Com m u n i c a t i o n s , Com c a s t , Com c a st STB, Tim e Warner & Cable One
On this day, came the parties by their attorneys and the following proceedings were had:
DAVID J. MALAND, CLERK FILED: 11/8/2005
B Y : Rosa L. Ferguson, Courtroom Deputy
PAGE 2 - Proceedings Continued
OPEN: 9:29 am TIME: 9:29 am MINUTES: Case called. Mr. Sankey, Mr. Luck, Mr. McLemore and Mr. Smith announced ready for plaintiff (Forgent) in Marshall Case. Mr. Wilcox, Mr. Barquist, Mr. McIhinney for Echostar Defendants; Mr. Dacus, Ms. James announced ready for Cable Dfts (Charter, Cox, Comcast & Time Warner); Mr. Lee, Mr. Savikas, Ms. Mullin, Mr. Crook for Direct TV; Mr. Jones, Mr. Erickson, Mr. Harding & Mr. Gardner for Motorola, Cox, Comcast, Comcast STB, Time Warner & Cable One. Mr. Yarbrough & Mr. Howell announced ready - they are w/Mr. Dacus' group. Tyler case same announcements Court addressed the parties on the Motion to Consolidate and Motion to Transfer Mr. Dacus presented Motion to Consolidate Cases and Motion to on behalf of ScientificAtlanta (Case No. 605cv343 - Dkt #51). Mr. Sankey responded and presented Motion to Consolidate and Transfer (Case No. 605cv343 - DKt #7) Court orders Tyler case be transferred and consolidated with Marshall case. Court and parties discussed proposed Docket Control Order (DCO). The trial date of 2/7/07 okay with plaintiff. Mr. Barquist has a conflict with that date. Mr. Howell also has a conflict. Court will keep date as is.. Court and parties discussed Markman date in July of 06. Court and parties discussed Discovery Order and DCO. Mr. Luck addressed the Court on number of interrogatories and requested and proposed 35 interrog to cable & satellite defendants as a side, additional 25 as to each defendant, 25 as to DJ plaintiffs, 25 for each DJ plaintiff. Mr. Luck outlined the specific proposals. Mr. Barquist responded and they are comfortable with the 60 per side, as the Court proposed. Mr. Barquist proposes 25 common interrogatories, plus 15 per defendant group. Mr. Luck responded and proposed a compromise and proposed 120 interrogatories. Mr. Barquist would accept 120 collectively. Court asked that plaintiff to prepare the orders in the Court's forms. Mr. Luck addressed the Court on 30(b)(6) depositions. Mr. Barquist responded and they propose 14 hours of 30(b)(6) for each defendant 9 parties, plus 140 hours of deposition time for all non-expert depositions for a total 266 hours. Mr. Luck responded and proffered his compromise. Court will allow 21 hours on 30(b)(6) depositions and 140 hours . Mr. Luck made his proposal on experts. Mr. Barquist responded and requested 16 experts. Mr. Luck responded. Court will go with 5 experts for plaintiff and 10 for the defendants collectively and Court is open to expanding or retracting them. Mr. Luck addressed the Court on duration of hours on expert discovery. Mr. Barquist responded and outlined their proposal. Court will allow 6 hours of common and 2 other hours. ADJOURN: 10:08 am
9:31 am 9:31 am 9:31 am 9:35 am 9:38 am 9:38 am
9:40 am 9:40 am
PAGE 3 - Proceedings Continued
TIME: 10:01 am MINUTES: Mr. Luck addressed the Court on the disclosures. Mr. Barquist requested the 45 days to the infringement contentions to the invalidity contentions. Mr. Luck responded. Court will go with plaintiff and keep case on track. Mr. Luck addressed the Court on the protective order. Mr. Barquist responded and there is one remaining issue on lower-level confidentiality and limit to lawyers and officers of the Court. Mr. Luck responded. Court agrees with plaintiff on that issue. Court and parties discussed time for trial. Mr. Luck estimates 2 weeks to try case. Mr. Barquist responded and they propose more than 2 weeks. Court will put down for 10 days of trial time. Court and parties discussed mediators. Mr. Barquist proposed Mike Patterson and Mr. Luck proposed Harlan Martin. Court will appoint former US Magistrate Robert Faulkner in Dallas. Mr. Barquist addressed the Court on the proposed orders. Mr. Jones addressed the Court and asked for clarification on the Tyler case being transferred to Marshall and all dates applying. Court indicated that all the dates would apply to the Tyler case. Court addressed the parties and admonished the parties to compromise and work together. There being nothing further, Court adjourned.
10:07 am 10:07 am
10:07 am 10:08 am
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?