Free Stipulation - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00876-GMS

Document 149

Filed 05/03/2006

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. ALCATEL USA, INC., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 04-874-GMS

C. A. No. 04-875-GMS

C. A. No. 04-876-GMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONCERNING DEPOSITION COUNTING AND USE Plaintiff Telcordia Technologies, Inc. and Defendants Alcatel USA, Inc., Lucent Technologies, Inc., and Cisco Systems, Inc., by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

Case 1:04-cv-00876-GMS

Document 149

Filed 05/03/2006

Page 2 of 4

1.

For Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, each 7-hour period of actual deposition

time will count as one deposition, regardless of the number of witnesses designated for that notice. Parts of a 7-hour period will be counted on a fractional basis and any cross-examination will not count against the time of the party taking the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. 2. Non-Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of witnesses will be limited to one 7-hour

period of actual deposition time per witness per party. This limit is subject to accommodations for translation of non-English depositions. 3. Depositions taken in any one of the three parallel actions will, for

admissibility purposes, be treated as having been taken from the other two cases as well, and subject to the same evidentiary rules as if the deposition had been taken in the other two cases, if the party against whom the testimony is to be admitted was present at the deposition or, if: (1) the deposition is of a named inventor for any of the patents-in-suit or (2) the deposition is of a third-party to the three parallel actions (other than a deposition of a current or former employee of any of the parties who is being questioned about activities while employed by any of the parties), so long as the party against whom the deposition is being used had a reasonable opportunity to attend the deposition. This stipulation is not a representation by any party that such depositions would not otherwise be admissible. 4. Unless the parties agree otherwise on a deposition-by-deposition basis,

any deposition noticed and taken in any one of the three parallel actions will, for counting purposes, be treated as having been taken only in the case in which it is noticed and taken. The other parties are, however, invited to attend and ask questions, subject to the 7 hour limit of the noticing side. 5. The parties agree that fifteen (15) depositions may be taken by Telcordia

and fifteen (15) depositions may be taken by the defendant in each of the three parallel actions, with the number of depositions being counted in accordance with the provisions set forth above. 6. For good cause shown the deposition limits set forth in this stipulation

may be adjusted by the Court as appropriate. This stipulation is not a representation by any party

Case 1:04-cv-00876-GMS

Document 149

Filed 05/03/2006

Page 3 of 4

that these limits necessarily will reflect the right amount of deposition discovery warranted in any of the actions. ASHBY & GEDDES /s/ John G. Day Steven J. Balick (I.D. #2114) John G. Day (I.D. #2403) 222 Delaware Avenue 17th Floor P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 [email protected] [email protected] Of Counsel: Of Counsel: Donald R. Dunner Steven M. Anzalone Don O. Burley Richard H. Smith Houtan K. Esfahani John M. Williamson FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 901 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 408-4000 Attorneys for Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Stuart J. Sinder Mark A. Hannemann Michelle Carniaux Clement J. Naples KENYON & KENYON One Broadway New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 425-7200 Facsimile: (212) 425-5288 Attorneys for Defendant Alcatel S.A. and Alcatel USA, Inc. in C.A. No. 04-874-GMS YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP /s/Josy W. Ingersoll Josy W. Ingersoll (I.D. #1088) Adam W. Poff (I.D. #3990) Andrew A. Lundgren (I.D. #4429) The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-6600 Facsimile: (302) 576-3334 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

3

Case 1:04-cv-00876-GMS

Document 149

Filed 05/03/2006

Page 4 of 4

YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP /s/ John W. Shaw John W. Shaw (I.D. #3362) Karen E. Keller (I.D. #4489) Monte T. Squire (I.D. #4764) The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-6600 Facsimile: (302) 576-3334 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Of Counsel: Steven C. Cherny LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 571-4864 David A. Nelson Israel Sasha Mayergoyz. Neilish R. Patel David C. McKone LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Sears Tower, Suite 5800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-7700 Facsimile: (312) 993-9767 Attorneys for Defendant Lucent Technologies Inc. in C.A. No. 04-875-GMS

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP /s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld Jack B. Blumenfeld (I.D. #1014) Leslie A. Polizoti (I.D. #4299) 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] [email protected] Of Counsel: Matthew D. Powers Edward R. Reines Jessica L. Davis Sonal N. Mehta Thomas B. King WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Ryan Owens WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Attorneys for Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. in C.A. No. 04876-GMS

SO ORDERED this ____ day of May, 2006.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
169065.1

4