Free Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—OO222-JBA Document 47 Filed O3/O3/2004 Page 1 of 4 1

E
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COIMINECTICUT
VICTOR G. RE|I.lI*·iiCr ASSOCIATES and
DESIGN It·~It~IOVA'TIOIHI, INC.,
Index No.: 3133 CV 222 (IBA)
Plaintiffs,
- against ,
FISIISR-PRICE, INC., prim;] 3_ gona
J OINT MOTION FOR OF THE SCHEDULING ORDER
Plaint.i&, Victor G. Reiling Associatm (“Re:il.ing"j and Design Innovation, Inc {“DI°’}
(collectively, “Plaintiifs"}, and Defendant Fi slrer—Price, Inc (“Fisl1er-P1·ioc"],~, pursuant to Rule 215 I
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfrrily move the Court for an order amending the {
Schecluling Order and, more particularly, granting a limited extension of time for the completion
of tlre depositions of Fisher-Price witness Starr Clutton and Fislier-Price“s expert witness I-Inward
Bollinger, and for tire Sling of dispositive motions. In support of the motion, tire parties
respectfully show unto the Court as follows: _
Flairr<;iffs" Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Cgplaint
I.. Ihirstrant to tlrc Scheduling Order dated May 9, 2D{l3, discovery is to be
completed by March 3, EUU4, and dispositive motions are to be Bled by April 5, 2[li}#-T-.. li
2 On February 6, ZIIU4, Flainti& iiled a Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint ("Motion to Amenld"). On February 20, 2[lt}4, Defendant 5Ied a
Memorandum in Opposition to F*IaintifIs’ Motion to Amend. Flaint:iEs’ Reply Brief is due on

Case 3:03-cv—OO222-JBA Document 47 Filed O3/O3/2004 Page 2 of 4
t
March 5, 20134. The Second Amended Complaint seeks to add several additional Fisl1er—P1ice
products to this action.
3 In the event that Plaintift`s° Motion to Amend is granted, the parties anticipate that
additional discovery will he related to the additional products Plainti;E|E`s seek to add to
the Second Amended Complaint, as outlined in the pa1ties’ hrlets in support of and in opposition
to the motion. The parties understand that, as discussed at me February 2 Status Coderence
`ofore the Court, the Court may need to issue a new sel1ed order if the gants
Plainti;d`s’ Ivlotion to Amend in whole or in part. This joint motion does not address any new
scheduling order which may he necessitated if Plain1iEis’ Motion to Amend is granted. Rather,
this joint motion addresses omy a limited extennon of the ctnrent Sehmuling {Jrder.
Motions to Compel
4. Plaintiffs intend to file a motion to compel on lhlarch 3, 2D{l4, seeking the
production of documents related to concept submissions made to Fishe1·—Price hy outside toy
inventors that resulted in comm products 1`iom 1996 ll'.!Ilt)I.1gl1 2lll}{l. Fisher-Price
intends to rnove to compel the production of documents hy Design innovation related to Design
]i1uovation’s work on the Rescue Heroes line of toys hom l99i" through present.
Discovg Not Completed Because ofPlain1;"s’ lvlo@
5. Plaintiflis -had noticed the depositions of two defense witnesses prior to the close
ot` disooveiyt Defendarrtls expert witness, I-lowaid Bollinger, tor February 26, 2llt}=l-, its
Senior Vice President of inventor Relations, Stan Clutton, for March 2, However, the
parties recognized that these depositions would he impacted hy hoth Plaint&’ lvtlotion to Aniend
and Plaintiftisl and Fisher—]F"1ioe’s contemplated motions to eornpel. Indeed, in the event the
Court grants these motions, additional document discovery will he required pursuant to
2

Case 3:03-cv—OO222-JBA Document 47 Filed O3/O3/2004 Page 3 of 4 E
o discovery requests. Plaiuliftis will seelc to question Messrs. Bollinger and Clutton
regarding any new documents produced hy Fisher-Price. Given this fact, the parties were
concerned that these two depositiom would need to conducted twice — once prior to the
March 3, 2t}tl·=l- close of discovery and again should either of Plaintitlif motions he granted.
Accordingly, the parties agreed to adjourn thme depositiom tnitil such time as the Court has
ruled on Plajntift`s’ motions. to the parties’ agreement, Plaintiffs will he permitted to L
conduct the a.t`orrnentioned depositions before dispositive motions are tiled.
6. .ttecord.ingly, the parties hezehy agree to and request arnendrnent of the
Scheduling Ctrder as foliowst
(aft That P1mitit}`s’ right to depose Messrs. Bollinger md Clntton is presented
notvritlistanding the expiration of the current discovery schedule; Z:
(ln) That should the Court grant Plaintilfsf Motion to Amend, in whole or in
part, the depositiom of Messrs. Clutton and Bollinger he held in the ordinary course of a
new scheduling order;
{cj That should the Court deny PlaintifFs’ Motion to Amend, the time for the
depositions of Messrs. Clntton and Bollinger he extended tnrlil one month after the Court 2
resolves hoth Plai.nti;Efs" Motion to Amend and motion to compel {and until one month
after Defendant produces all additional documents ordered hy the Court, if any, pursuant
to Plainti;lis’ rnotion to compel), and the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions
accordingly he eittended until one month aher the time both depositions are completed;
{d) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
3 Q

Case 3:03-cv—OO222-JBA Document 47 Filed O3/O3/2004 Page 4 of 4 E

Dated: l‘·.·Ia11‘.:}1 3, ZUU4
Respectfully Submitted,
GRIIMELES & BAI'I'ERSBY, LLP HDDGSDN RUSS LLP
.e— x
t_ * _ Q ' 1 GyH·!u'[}env£·*ss·I¤»*n_
Gregury I. Bartersby {Bar . U?336} Hebert J. , Jr. (Bar Ne. 4593) E
Edmund J. Fendinzxud, [II [Bar Ne. 2123?] Judyeun G-aivin {Bar Ne. et2459'9) L
Russell D- Dize [Be: Ne. ESUE4) Due M&T Plaza, Suite 2DUD f
433 Mein Avenue Bnxlfale, New Yecrk I42El3-2391 r
Norwalk; CT D635I—1Ui}3 {H6) 356-4UDU §
(EDB) 349—33i}{1
‘ and
Atterueys fm: Pleintith Vietur G. Reiliug
Assucieies and Design Irmevatien, Ine. RDBHQSDN -8: COLE LLP
Hmdfurd S. Babbitt (Bar Ne- ct135}33) _£
231] Trumbull Street *
Hertford, CT {15103-E59? ··
(36tl} ETS-32[ZHJ .
Atienueys fer Defendant Fish+:,;·-Price, Ine.
4 Q