Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01507-SLR Document 37 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 2
ASHEY 6. GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-654-ISGS
222 DELAWARE AVENUE
FACSIMILE
P. O. BOX II5O 3¤z-g54-zog7
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE I9899
June 6, 2005
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson VIA E-FILING
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: L.P. Matthews LLC v. Bath & Body Works, et al.,
C.A. No. 04-1507-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
In preparation for the Rule 16 teleconference scheduled for 8:30 am (Eastern) on
Wednesday June 8, 2005 in the above action, plaintiff L.P. Matthews is pleased to report our
understanding that the parties have reached agreement on all proposed dates with the exception
of a trial date.
The parties, however, have been unable to reach agreement on the following three
provisions:
(1) Paragraph 2(b)(6) addresses depositions of fact witnesses. Plaintiff proposes a
provision that limits repetitive or duplicative questioning of its fact witnesses. Limiting
duplicative examination of plaintiff’ s witnesses who have already testified in response to
examination by co-defendants’ counsel will reduce repetitive and cumulative evidence.
(2) Paragraph 2(c)(2) addresses depositions of expert witnesses. Plaintiff proposes a
provision that limits repetitive or duplicative questioning of expert witnesses for the reasons
stated in the previous paragraph.
(3) Plaintiff also proposes a provision in paragraph 2(c)(2) that provides for
additional deposition time of experts who file supplemental reports after claim construction.
Under the enclosed proposed Scheduling Order, the Court would construe the claims after expert
discovery closes. (See {lil 5-7.) Providing for supplemental opinions in the Scheduling Order
will ensure that, should an expert file a report applying a claim construction that differs from that
adopted by the Court, that report can be supplemented to apply the Court’s claim construction.
This will (1) provide expert reports that comply with the notice requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2), and (2) ensure that expert testimony at trial is directed to issues actually before the jury.

Case 1:04-cv-01507-SLR Document 37 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
June 6, 2005
Page 2
For the Court’s convenience, we enclose a proposed scheduling order that reflects all of
the agreed upon dates, the three provisions proposed above by L.P. Matthews, and a blank for the
date on which trial will commence.
Respectfully,
105 G. D
J GD/nml
Enclosure
rssrsar
cz Clerk of the Court (by hand; w/enc.)
Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire (by hand; w/enc.)
Francis G.X. Pileggi, Esquire (by hand; w/enc.)
Robert A. Auchter, Esquire (via facsimile; w/enc.)
Arthur I. Neustadt, Esquire (via facsimile; w/enc.)
John Ward, Esquire (via facsimile; w/enc.)