I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order with Respect to Expert Disclosure Dates and Memorandum in Support of Consent Motion by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Snow, W. Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
AOL, INC. et al.,
CONSENT MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CONSENT MOTION
TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER WITH RESPECT TO EXPERT
Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves this Court for entry of an order amending
three discovery dates in this case. The modification of these deadlines will not delay the parties’
readiness for trial or the trial date. Plaintiff has taken care to avoid any disruption to any
deadlines for submission of materials to, or appearances before, this Court. The dates at issue
affect only the parties’ discovery exchanges rather than deadlines that impact obligations to this
Court. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a Proposed Order for this Court’s consideration. The majority
of the deadlines in this Court’s February 15, 2012 Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order (D.I. 90) will not
be altered under this proposal.
Specifically, Plaintiff requests the following amendments:
Plaintiff requests that this Court extend the service of expert disclosures by the
party with the burden of proof from July 18, 2012 to July 25, 2012.
Plaintiff requests that this Court extend the service of expert disclosures intended
solely to respond to, contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter disclosed by another
party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or the Pretrial Order from August 20, 2012 to August 29, 2012.
Plaintiff requests that this Court eliminate the service of rebuttal disclosures by
the party bearing the initial burden of proof (currently scheduled for September 4, 2012).
As grounds for this request, Plaintiff states that it has conferred with Defendants
and the parties agree that the proposed extensions will streamline expert discovery.
As noted above, Plaintiff believes that entry of the proposed order will not
interfere with trial preparation, yet will allow for flexibility in scheduling discovery and
developing the case before trial. Defendants do not object to the requested changes.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter the proposed order to
modify three discovery deadlines.
Dated: July 16, 2012
By: /s/ W. Ryan Snow
Donald C. Schultz
W. Ryan Snow
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 1500
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 623-3000
Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
(Virginia Bar No. 19222)
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
Dawn Rudenko Albert
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 16, 2012, I will electronically file the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to
Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 624-3239
Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Counsel for AOL Inc., Google, Inc.,
Gannett Co., Inc., Target Corporation and
IAC Search & Media, Inc.
Cortney S. Alexander
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
Counsel for Defendant AOL, Inc.
By: /s/ W. Ryan Snow
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?