Name of Assigned Judge Joan B. Gottschall Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge Sidney I. Schenkier
STATUS AND MOTION HEARING HELD. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court, and as summarized below: (1) denies plaintiff's motion for jurisdictional discovery (doc. # 300 in 05 C 4120) as moot; (2) grants plaintiff's motion to file an opposition in excess of 15 pages (doc. # 303 in 05 C 4120); (3) denies without prejudice as moot plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents and things and responses to interrogatories (doc. # 298 in 05 C 4120 and doc. # 173 in 05 C 5164); (4) sets a briefing schedule on the motion for protective order modification (doc. # 284 in 05 C 4120); (5) by separate order, establishes a procedure that the parties must follow for filing motions relating to discovery; and (6) sets a discovery schedule. The matter is set for a status hearing with the magistrate judge on 12/01/10 at 10:00 a.m. By the close of business on 11/24/10, the parties shall submit a joint agenda of matters they wish to address at the status hearing.
O [ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
1. We deny the motion for jurisdictional discovery as m oot, in light of the representation of counsel for the relevant GL parties that they plan to withdraw the m otion to dism iss for lack of personal jurisdiction that is presently pending before Judge Gottschall in 05 C 4120 (see doc. # 265), as they have done in the 10 C 716 case pending before Judge Pallm eyer (doc. # 78).
2. We deny without prejudice the m otion to com pel production of docum ents and things, and responses to interrogatories (doc. # 298 in 05 C 4120 and doc. # 173 in05C 5164), and direct the parties to use the procedures for filing discovery motions that the Court has put into place today. Solely for purposes of the dispute raised in this m otion to com pel, we will m odify the procedures as follows: (a) the parties are not required to exchange letters concerning their dispute; (b) the parties shall m eet and confer concerning the dispute by 10/27/2010; (c) the parties shall prepare a joint statem ent of their m eet and confer by 11/01/2010; and (d) any m otion to com pel shall be filed by 11/08/10. The m eet and confer, the joint statem ent, and any motion shall com ply with all other aspects of the procedures.
3. With respect to the pending m otion for protective order am endm ent (doc. # 284 in 05 C 4120), defendants shall file their reply m em orandum by 11/03/10. The reply shall not exceed 15 pages, double spaced and with 12-point font. The reply need not address law of the case or whether "exceptional circum stances" are needed to am end the protective order, and need not address m atters raised in the m otion to disqualify counselthat is pending before Judge Pallm eyer in 10 C 716 (doc. # 73) and that is noticed for presentm ent before Judge Gottschall in 05 C 4120 (doc. # 293). Once the m otion is fully briefed, the Court will rule by mail unless it advises the parties that there will be oral argument.
4. The Court sets the following schedule for discovery in 05 C 4120 and 05 C 5164:
A, 12/17/2010: Deadline for parties to seek additional claim construction hearing.
B. 01/14/2011: Deadline for am endm ent of pleadings.
C. 02/25/2011: Deadline for defendants to state whether they will assert advice of counsel as a defense to the claim of willful infringem ent, and if they assert advice of counsel, to produce docum ents relevant to that assertion.
D. 04/29/2011: Deadline for com pletion of all non-retained expert fact discovery. As explained on the record, discovery shall address issues of alleged infringem ent and dam ages, and each party m ay pursue deposition discovery -- but not document discovery -- as to the following alleged item s of prior art: NYSE, SW X, AMEX Option Display, '999 patent and ePit, W it Capital Digital Stock Marketing System , Osaka, '501 and '031 patents, DTB (Xetra Platform ), CME (Globex 1 and 2), Intex and OM (Click Trade). Each side is lim ited to no m ore than a total of 20 depositions with respect to these alleged item s of prior art. This lim itation does not preclude additional depositions on infringem ent and dam ages. The Court overrules defendants' request for further discovery ...