Free Scheduling Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:97-cv-00586-SLR Document 430 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RONALD CANTOR, IVAN SNYDER and :
JAMES A. SCARPONE, as `TRUSTEES OF :
THE MAFCO LITIGATION, and as :
SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO MARVEL ;
ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. etal., :
Plaintiffs, E
v. C. A. N0. 97-586-KAJ
RONALD O. PERELMAN, MAFCO
HOLDINGS INC., MacANDREWS 8. FORBES :
HOLDINGS INC., ANDREWS GROUP INC., :
WlLI-IAM C. BEVINS and DONALD G. :
DRAPKIN, :
Defendants.
SCHEDULING ORDER
At Wilmington, Delaware, this 18th day of October, 2005,
Following a scheduling conference held on September 9, 2005, IT IS ORDERED
that:
1. Discovery
(a) Fact Discovery. Fact discovery is complete and neither party can
initiate additional fact discovery without leave of the Court, with the exception of matters
addressed by paragraph 1(e) herein.
(b) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. Either party may identify additional
expert testimony on or before January 13, 2006 by filing additional reports in
accordance with Federal Rule 26(a)(2). The parties shall file rebuttal expert reports on
or before March 3, 2006. Depositions upon oral examinations of experts so identified
shall be initiated so that they will be completed on or before April 21, 2006.

Case 1:97-cv-00586-SLR Document 430 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 2 of 4
(c) Daubert Motions. To the extent any objection to expert testimony is
made pursuant to the principles announced in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509
U.S. 579 (1993), it shall be made by motion no later than June 1, 2006.
(d) Discovery Disputes (ln General). Should counsel find they are
unable to resolve a discovery dispute, the party seeking the relief shall contact
chambers at (302) 573-5001 to schedule a telephone conference. Not less than forty-
eight hours priorto the conference, the party seeking relief shall file with the Court a
letter, not to exceed three pages, outlining the issues in dispute and its position on
those issues. (The Court does not seek extensive argument or authorities at this point;
it seeks simply a statement of the issue to be addressed and or summary of the basis
forthe party's position on the issue.) Not less than twenty-four hours prior to the
conference, any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed
three pages, outlining that party's reasons for its opposition. Should the Court find
further briefing necessary upon conclusion of the telephone conference, the Court will
order it.
(e) The Pending Motion to Compel The parties should meet and
confer to resolve the outstanding dispute regarding defendants' assertion of the
attorney-client and other privileges. lf the parties are not able to resolve that dispute,
then on or before October 21, 2005, plaintiffs shall renew their application, in
accordance with the procedure set forth in the prior paragraph, by making their request
for a teleconference.
2. Motion to Strike Jung Demand Defendants shall file their motion to strike
the jury demand and supporting papers on or before October 21, 2005. Plaintiffs shall
2

Case 1:97-cv-00586-SLR Document 430 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 3 of 4
file their opposition and supporting papers on or before November 23, 2005.
Defendants shall file their reply and supporting papers on or before December 7, 2005.
3. Pretrial Conference On September 11, 2006, the Court will hold a Rule
16(d) Final Pretrial Conference in Chambers with counsel beginning at 4:30 p.m. On or
before May 22, 2006, pIaintiffs‘ counsel shall forward to defendants' counsel a draft of
the pretrial order with the information plaintiff proposes to include in that draft. On or
before June 8, 2006, defendants' counsel shall, in turn, provide pIaintiffs' counsel with
comments on the pIaintiffs' draft and the information the defendants intend to include in
the proposed order. Each party shall include in the draft pretrial order an identification
of each expert witness that party expects to call to testify at the trial and a brief
statement of the substance of each opinion the expert will testify to at the trial. The final
pretrial order shall be filed with the Court on or before July 14, 2006. Unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, the parties should assume that filing the pretrial order satisfies the
pretrial disclosure requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3).
4. Motions in Limine. Motions in Limine shall not be separately filed. All in
limine requests and responses thereto shall be set forth in the proposed pretrial order.
Each party shall be limited to five in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted by the
Court. The in Iimine request and any response shall contain the authorities relied upon;
each in limine request may be supported by a maximum of five pages of argument and T
may be opposed by a maximum of five pages of argument. lf more than one party is
supporting or opposing an in fimine request, such support or opposition shall be
combined in a single five (5) page submission, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
3

Case 1:97-cv-00586-SLR Document 430 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 4 of 4
No separate briefing shall be submitted 0n in limine requests, unless otherwise
permitted by the Court.
5. Jury Instructions, Voir Dire, and Special Verdict Forms. lf the case is to be
tried to a jury, pursuant to Local Rules 47 and 51, the parties should simultaneously
exchange draft proposed instructions to the jury, special verdict forms and jury
interrogatories on August 7, 2006. The parties shall file proposed voir dire, instructions
to the jury, and special verdict forms and jury interrogatories three full business days
before the final pretrial conference. That submission shall be accompanied by a
computer diskette (in WordPerfect format) which contains the instructions, proposed
voir dire, special verdict forms and jury interrogatories.
6. @ This matter is scheduled for a trial beginning at 9:30 a.m. on
October 10, 2006 and shall conclude on October 27, 2006.
4