Wingard, Peter v. Metro Kia of Madison

Filing 48

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion for Discovery by Defendant Metro Kia of Madison. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/12/2015. (voc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PETER F. WINGARD,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
14-cv-185-jdp
METRO KIA OF MADISON,
Defendant.

PETER F. WINGARD,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
14-cv-401-jdp
BALLWEG CHEVROLET,
Defendant.

PETER F. WINGARD,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
14-cv-402-jdp
METRO FORD OF MADISON,
Defendant.

PETER F. WINGARD,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
14-cv-403-jdp
SMART MOTORS TOYOTA,
Defendant.

PETER F. WINGARD,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

14-cv-404-jdp
ZIMBRICK HONDA,
Defendant.

The parties have cooperated on some discovery and pre-hearing disclosures in advance of
the February 20 evidentiary hearing on plaintiff’s standing. Defendants have asked the court to
referee disputes over three details. I appreciate that the parties have worked out as much as they
have, and I will rule on these details without waiting for plaintiff’s response because the hearing
is about a week away and the parties need quick answers.
1.

The parties have agreed to exchange witness and exhibits lists by Thursday,

February 12, at 5 p.m. Defendants would like the court to set a quick deadline (Friday evening
or Monday morning) for disclosing objections to witnesses and exhibits; plaintiff opposes this.
Defendants’ proposal is generally reasonable and helpful. To foster fairness and efficiency, the
parties have until Monday, February 16, at 10 a.m., to lodge objections to the other side’s
witnesses and exhibits. I will not, however, deem objections not made by this deadline to be
irredeemably waived if the delay in making the objection is justified. I will rule on all evidentiary
objections at the hearing, and whether the objection was made by the Monday deadline will be a
factor that I will consider.
2.

Defendants seek to prohibit plaintiff from identifying new witnesses after

Wingard’s deposition. I will not bar plaintiff (or defendants) from identifying new witnesses
bearing on Wingard’s standing, although the late disclosure of any such witnesses may cast
doubt on their utility and legitimacy. Accordingly, either side may supplement its witness list
with good cause shown.
3.

Defendants request three hours for Wingard’s deposition; plaintiff offers two. I

will not limit defendants to two hours for Wingard’s deposition. Consistent with this court’s

2

general approach to discovery in patent cases, defendants may have as long as they reasonably
need to depose Wingard on the standing issue. Defendants’ request for three hours should give
the parties a rough idea of how long defendants likely need, but even that is not a strict limit.
Defendants should avoid repetitious or cumulative examination. Although there are five separate
cases and defendants, the evidence bearing on the standing issue is exactly the same in each
case. A single examination by one attorney ought to cover the territory for all defendants, but I
will not bar counsel for the other defendants from asking non-redundant questions of their own.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
Defendants’ emergency motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as provided
above.

Entered February 12, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3