Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :97-cv—00586-SLR Document 427-2 Filed 09/21 /2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RONALD CAN TOR, IVAN SNYDER and :
JAMES A. SCARPONE, as TRUSTEES OF :
THE MAFCO LITIGATION, and as :
SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO :
MARVEL ENTERTAHWMENT GROUP, :
INC. et al., :
Plaintiffs, 2
v. : C. A. No. 97-586-KAJ
RONALD O. PERELMAN, MAFCO :
HOLDH\IGS INC., MacANDREWS & :
FORBES HOLDINGS INC., ANDREWS :
GROUP INC., WILLIAM C. BEVINS and :
DONALD G. DRAPKIN, :
Defendants.
SCHEDULING ORDER
At Wihnington, Delaware, this __ day of , 2005,
Following a scheduling conference held on September 9, 2005, IT IS ORDERED
that:
l. Discovegg
(a) Fact Discoveg;. 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 l(e) herein.
(b) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. Either party may identify
additional expert testimony on or before January I3, 2006 by filing additional reports in
accordance with Federal Rule 26(a)(2). The parties shall tile rebuttal expert reports on or

Case 1 :97-cv—OO586-SLR Document 427-2 Filed O9/21/2005 Page 2 of 4
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.
(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,
except that such objections to the expert testimony of Robert W. Holthausen and William
H. Purcell as set forth in the reports dated March 15, March 29 and April 9, 2002 shall be
made by motion no later than November l, 2005.
(d) Discoveg; Disputes (In General). Should counsel find they
are unable to resolve a discovery dispute, the party seeking the relief shall contact
chambers at (302) 573-6001 to schedule a telephone conference. Not less than forty-
eight hours prior to 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 for the
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 fmd 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
attomey-client and other privileges. If the parties are not able to resolve that dispute,
then on or before October 21, 2005, plaintiffs shall renew their application, in accordance
2

Case 1 :97-cv—00586-SLR Document 427-2 Filed O9/21/2005 Page 3 of 4
with the procedure set forth in the prior paragraph, by making their request for a
teleconference.
2. Motion to Strike Jg Demand Defendants shall file their motion to strike
the jury demand and supporting papers on or before October 21, 2005. Plaintiffs shall
file their opposition and supporting papers on or before November 23, 2006. Defendants
shall file their reply and supporting papers on or before December 7, 2006.
2. Pretrial Conference On September _, 2006, the Court will hold a Rule
l6(d) Final Pretrial Conference in Courtroom No. _ with counsel beginning at _ _.m.
On or before May 22, 2006, plaintiffs' 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' cotmsel shall, in tum, provide plaintiffs' counsel
with comments on the plaintiffs' 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).
2. 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 limine request and any response shall contain the authorities relied
upon; each in limine request may be supported by a maximtun of five pages of argument
3

Case 1 :97-cv—OO586-SLR Document 427-2 Filed O9/21/2005 Page 4 of 4
and may be opposed by a maximum of live pages of argrunent. If more than one party is
supporting or opposing an in limine request, such support or opposition shall be
combined in a single five (5) page submission, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
No separate briefing shall be submitted on in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted
by the Court.
3. Ig; Instructions, Voir Dire, and Special Verdict Forms. If 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 fonns and jury interrogatories three full
business days before the Hnal 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.
4. Trial. This matter is scheduled for a trial begimring at 9:30 a.m.
on October 10, 2006 and shall conclude on October 27, 2006.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4