Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02232/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02232-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE

CASE NO. 03-CV-02232 JF 

SFCA_402787 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 

TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 

FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 

NANCY J. GEENEN, BAR NO. 135968 

KIMBERLY K. DODD, BAR NO. 235109 

Attorneys for Defendants Rockwell 

Software, Inc. and Rockwell Automation, 

Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SYSTEMS AMERICA, INC. AND 

SYSTEMS AMERICA (I) PVT. LTD. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ROCKWELL SOFTWARE, INC. AND 

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC. 

Defendants. 

Case No. 03-CV-02232 JF 

Honorable Jeremy Fogel 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC. 

Third Party Plaintiff, 

v. 

VERSANT CORPORATION 

Third Party Defendant. 

Plaintiffs SYSTEMS AMERICA, INC. and SYSTEMS AMERICA (I) PVT. LTD. 

(collectively “Systems America”) and Defendants ROCKWELL SOFTWARE, INC. and 

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC. (collectively “Rockwell”), by and through their respective 

duly authorized counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree to the following Stipulation and 

[Proposed] Order to Continue Case Schedule in the above-captioned matter. 

The parties request an extension of the case schedule to allow the parties to conclude 

necessary pretrial discovery. Such an extension is warranted for the following reasons: 

**E-filed 1/22/07**

Case 5:03-cv-02232-JF Document 97 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 5
2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE

CASE NO. 03-CV-02232 JF 

SFCA_402787 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1. Although this action was filed in 2003, by order dated April 19, 2004, the Court 

ordered the parties to stay all further litigation until May, 2006 in order to carry out mandatory 

ADR procedures between Systems America and Rockwell. On May 4, 2006, the Special Master 

appointed for purposes of the ADR issued an order returning the action to court. (Dkt. #66.) 

Accordingly, the parties were prevented from beginning discovery in this action until the 

Summer of 2006. 

2. In addition, based substantially on the results of the special master proceedings, 

the parties and nature of the case have changed significantly; both Systems America and 

Rockwell have changed counsel since the conclusion of the ADR (Dkt. #62 and Dkt. #71), 

Rockwell filed a Third-Party Complaint adding Versant as a Third-Party Defendant on 

June 26, 2006 (Dkt. #69), and Systems America filed a First Amended Complaint on 

September 27, 2006 adding a new cause of action for copyright infringement, added Defendant 

Rockwell Automation, Inc., and substantially enlarged its allegations against the Rockwell 

entities. (Dkt. #80.) Finally, based upon Systems America’s enlarged pleadings, Rockwell filed 

a First Amended Third-Party Complaint against Third-Party Defendant Versant on 

October 12, 2006 adding claims for breach of warranty. (Dkt. #82.) 

3. In response to Rockwell’s Third-Party Complaint, Versant filed a motion to 

dismiss Rockwell’s First Amended Third-Party Complaint on November 3, 2006, which is not 

scheduled to be heard until January 19, 2007. 

4. The deadlines set in the current Scheduling Order (set prior to the amended 

pleadings detailed above), include a January 15, 2007 discovery cut-off. Accordingly, the parties 

will not know the scope of Rockwell’s claims against Versant and Versant will not file an answer 

until after the close of discovery. 

5. Further, Versant has uniformly objected to document requests served upon it by 

Rockwell, claiming that, because its motion to dismiss is now pending, the case against it is “not 

yet at issue.” Though Versant was twice solicited to join in this Stipulation and [Proposed] 

Order, it has steadfastly refused to take any position on the matter, reiterating that “Versant is 

still not at issue in this action.” While Rockwell and Systems America do not concede that the 

Case 5:03-cv-02232-JF Document 97 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 5
3 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE

CASE NO. 03-CV-02232 JF 

SFCA_402787 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

case is not yet at issue, Versant’s objections to discovery and refusal to otherwise participate in 

the litigation makes it impossible for the parties to complete fact discovery by the 

January 15, 2007 deadline. 

6. Notwithstanding Versant’s uniform refusal to produce documents, Rockwell and 

Systems America have aggressively engaged in substantial written discovery, including 

interrogatories, production of approximately 70,000 pages of documents, and begun taking 

depositions of Rockwell’s 30(b)(6) witness(es). 

7. Further, Systems America and Rockwell have encountered substantial 

disagreement regarding the scope of Systems America’s discovery requests to Rockwell and 

have engaged in substantial meet and confer efforts to address such disagreement. Rockwell has 

agreed to produce some, but not all, of the documents and information requested by Systems 

America, and based upon representations of Rockwell, Systems America has agreed to 

temporarily withhold pursuing motions to compel until such time as Systems America can 

examine the documents and information that Rockwell will voluntarily provide. For example, 

Rockwell produced source code for approximately thirty versions of products on 

December 7, 2006 and approximately 40,000 pages of technical documentation on 

January 9, 2007. This source code and technical documentation will require extensive analysis 

by the parties and their experts. 

6. Systems America took the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Rockwell on 

December 14-15, 2006, and Rockwell agreed to re-produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness at a later 

date after Rockwell’s document production is complete to allow Systems America to question 

the witness regarding any subsequently-produced discovery by Rockwell. 

7. Each party has voluminous records pertaining to the claims alleged in this action 

and plans to supplement their respective document productions in January, 2007. 

8. In addition to the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Rockwell, the parties plan to take 

the depositions of numerous individuals and the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of Systems America 

and Versant. The parties would prefer to defer these additional depositions until the parties have 

substantially completed their respective document productions. 

Case 5:03-cv-02232-JF Document 97 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 5
4 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE

CASE NO. 03-CV-02232 JF 

SFCA_402787 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOW, THEREFORE, Systems America and Rockwell, by and through their counsel, 

stipulate and request that this Court enter an order extending the case schedule as follows: 

DESCRIPTION CURRENT DATE NEW DATE

Parties shall complete fact discovery on or 

before January 15, 2007 May 11, 2007 

Party with burden of proof shall serve expert 

reports on or before February 1, 2007 June 1, 2007 

Parties shall serve rebuttal expert reports on or 

before March 1, 2007 June 29, 2007 

Parties shall complete expert witness discovery 

on or before March 19, 2007 July 20, 2007 

Parties shall file motions for summary judgment 

on or before April 16, 2007 August 10, 2007 

Pretrial Conference June 1, 2007 October 5, 2007 

Trial June 15, 2007 October 19, 2007 

DATED: JANUARY 18, 2007 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

BY: /S/ 

KIMBERLY K. DODD

Attorneys for Defendants ROCKWELL 

SOFTWARE, INC. AND ROCKWELL 

AUTOMATION, INC. 

DATED: JANUARY 18, 2007 HELLER EHRMAN LLP 

BY: /S/ 

COLBERN C. STUART, III 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs SYSTEMS 

AMERICA, INC. AND SYSTEMS AMERICA 

(I) PVT. LTD. 

Case 5:03-cv-02232-JF Document 97 Filed 01/22/07 Page 4 of 5
5 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE

CASE NO. 03-CV-02232 JF 

SFCA_402787 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: __________________, 2007 

JUDGE JEREMY FOGEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1/19/07

Case 5:03-cv-02232-JF Document 97 Filed 01/22/07 Page 5 of 5