I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 83

RULE 26(f) PRETRIAL ORDER: Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference set for 2/13/2012 at 09:00 AM before District Judge Raymond A. Jackson. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman on 1/13/12 & filed on 1/17/12. (ptom)

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

JAN 1 7 2012
CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT
NORFOLK. VA

I/P Engine, Inc.,

Plaintiff/ Counter Defendant.
Civil Action No: 2:1 Icv512
v.

AOL, Inc., et. al.,

Defendants / Counter Claimants.

RULE 26(fl PRETRIAL ORDER

Subject to any special appearance, questions of jurisdiction, or other
motions now pending, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. On January 27.2012 at 2:00 p.m.. the parties shall confer for the

purpose of conducting the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

(hereinafter "Rule") 26(f). Unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties, the parties shall
meet in person at the offices of counsel located closest to the courthouse at Norfolk.

By

agreement of the parties, this conference may be conducted at anytime prior to the Rule
16(b) conference or at any place and by any means of communication so long as the

parties accomplish the purposes of Rule 26(f) in a timely manner. The parties' proposed
discovery plan shall provide for completion of all discovery on or before June 12.2012.

and shall be formulated to accommodate a trial date before October 13.2012. The parties
shall report orally upon their discovery plan at the subsequent Rule 16(b) conference and
the plan shall not be filed with the Court.

2. The Rule 16(b) scheduling and planning conference will be conducted at
the Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse in Norfolk on February 13.2012 at
9:00a.m. in Courtroom 4 Witness Room, first floor.

(a) The Rule 16(b) conference may be rescheduled for an earlier date by
agreement of the parties, subject to the availability of the court; however, the

conference may not be postponed to a later date without leave of court. If the
date poses an unavoidable conflict for counsel, and all counsel and unrepresented
parties can agree on an alternate date, please call Patrice Thompson in the Clerk's
Office at [phone] for assistance.

(b) At the conference, all parties shall be present or represented by an
attorney, admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Virginia, who possesses the
authority to agree upon all discovery and scheduling matters that may reasonably
be anticipated to be heard by the court.

(c) The parties are advised that the court has instituted a procedure for

Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) contained in Local Rule

83.6. In accordance with Local Rule 83.6(D), utilization of ADR procedures shall
not operate to change any date set by order of the court, by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, or by the Local Rules of Practice.

(d) The parties shall complete the initial disclosures set forth in Rule

26(a)(l) on or before February 27.2012. Any objections to the requirement of
initial disclosure, and any unresolved issues regarding the discovery plan, shall be
addressed at the Rule 16(b) conference.

3. Subject to the limitations imposed in pretrial orders, the parties may

initiate any form of discovery at anytime subsequent to the date of this order, provided
that no party will be required to respond to a deposition notice or other form of discovery
sooner than March 9.2012. unless specifically ordered by the court. All objections to

interrogatories and requests for production and admission should be served within fifteen

(15) days after service of such discovery requests. The failure of a party to comply with
any disclosure provision, or any other form of discovery, will not excuse any other party

from the failure to comply with any disclosure provision or any other form of discovery.

4. Interrogatories to any party by any other party shall be limited to thirty

(30) in number, including sub-parts. Depositions of nonparty, non-expert witnesses shall
be limited to five (5) in number. There shall be no limit placed upon the number of

depositions of military witnesses, or of witnesses not subject to summons for trial, which
are undertaken by the proponent of the witness for the purpose of presenting such
deposition testimony at trial. By agreement of the parties, or upon good cause shown, the
court may enlarge the number of interrogatories which may be served upon a party, and

the number of depositions which may be taken, or limit the number of depositions of
military witnesses, or those taken by the proponent of the witness for presentation in
evidence in lieu of the appearance of the witness.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: January 13,2012