Free Stipulation - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv—00062-GIVIS Document 40 Filed 04/26/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CITY OF TACOMA, a Washington :
municipal corporation, :
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 05-62-GMS
WORLDGATE COMMUNICATIONS, JU RY TRIAL DEMANDED
INC., a Delaware corporation, :
Defendant.
STIPULATED REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
WHEREAS, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in the above—captioned case on
December 19, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the parties filed a Stipulation to Extend Time for Expert Disclosures
on January 27, 2006, and
WI—IEREAS, the parties wish to mediate the case before incurring significant legal
fees and expenses in discovery, and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2006, Magistrate Judge Thynge entered an Order
Scheduling Mediation on October 3, 2006, less than a month before trial, and well after
the close of discovery and briefing on case dispositive motions pursuant to the Court’s
previously entered Scheduling Order, and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to and arranged for a private mediation on
April 28, 2006, .
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval
of the Court, that the Scheduling Order and Stipulation to Extend Time for Expert
Disclosures be revised as follows:

Case 1 :06-cv—00062-GIVIS Document 40 Filed 04/26/2006 Page 2 of 4
1. Discovery.
a. Discovery Cut Off. All discovery in this case shall be initiated so
that it will be completed on or before June 7, 2006. The Court encourages the parties to
serve and respond to contention interrogatories early inthe case. Unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, the limitations on discovery set forth in Local Rule 26.1 shall be
strictly observed.
b. Disclosure of Expert Testimony. The parties shall tile their initial
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) disclosures of expert testimony on or before
May 22, 2006, and file a supplemental disclosure to contradict or rebut evidence on the
same subject matter identified by another party on or before June 5, 2006. 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 the deadline for dispositive motions set forth herein, tmless otherwise ordered
by the Court.
c. Discovery Disputes. Should counsel fmd they are unable to
resolve a discovery dispute, the party seeking the relief shall contact chambers at (302)
573-6470 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 two (2)
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 a surnrnary 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 two (2) pages, outlining that party's
2

Case 1 :05-cv—00062-GIVIS Document 40 Filed 04/26/2006 Page 3 of 4
reasons for its opposition. Should the Court find further briefing necessary upon
conclusion of the telephone conference, the Court will order it.
2. Papers Filed Under Seal. When filing papers under seal, counsel should
deliver to the Clerk an original and one copy of the papers.
3. Case Dispositive Motions. All case dispositive motions, an opening brief,
and affidavits, if any, in support of the motion shall be served and filed on or before lime
12, 2006. Briefing will be presented pursuant to the Court's Local Rules.
4. Applications by Motion. Except as otherwise specified herein, any
application to the Court shall be by written motion filed with the Clerk. Unless otherwise
requested by the Court, counsel shall not deliver copies of papers or correspondence to
Chambers. Any non-dispositive motion should contain the statement required by Local
Rule 7.1.1.
5. Pretrial Conference. On October 11, 2006, the Court will hold a Final
Pretrial Conference in Chambers with counsel beginning at 10:00 a.1n. Unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, the parties should assume that filing the pretrial order satisfies the
pretrial disclosure requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3). The parties
shall file with the Court the joint proposed final pretrial order with the information
required by the form of Final Pretrial Order available on the Court’s website on or before
Septe1nber 18, 2006.
6. Motions in Limine. Motions in limirze shall not be separately filed. All in
Zimine requests and responses shall be set forth in the proposed pretrial order. Each party
shall be limited to five in Zimirze requests, unless otherwise permitted by the Court. The
motion and response thereto shall contain the authorities relied upon, and no single in
3

Case 1 :05-cv—00062-GIVIS Document 40 Filed 04/26/2006 Page 4 of 4
Zimine request shall have more than five pages of argument associated with it. No
separate briefing shall be submitted on in limine requests, unless otherwise permitted by
the Court.
7. J ig Instructions, Voir Dire, and Special Verdict Forms. Where a case is
to be tried to a jury, pursuant to Local Rules 47 and 51 the parties should file proposed
voir dire, instructions to the jury, and special verdicts and interrogatories three full
business days before the final pretrial conference. That submission shall be accompanied
by a compact disk (in Word Perfect Format) which contains a copy of these instructions
and proposed voir dire and special verdicts and interrogatories.
8. Trial. This matter is scheduled for a five (5) day jury trial beginning at
9:30 a.rn. on October 30, 2006.
Dated:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Agreed as to form and substance:
BIF FERATO, GENTILOTTI, McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
BID N & BALICK
MJ C\’LC»•·7-3. V5 1; A\.¤
Adam Balick (DE 2718) Michael P. Kelly 2295)
Joanne Ceballos (DE 2854) 919 North Market Street
711 King Street Suite 1800, P.O. Box 111
Wilriiiiigtori, DE 19801 Wihnington, DE 19899
Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant
City of Tacoma WorldGate Communications, Inc.
Dated: ‘l·lZ(¢l@(¤ Dated: 4 l_‘Z(p lp;
4