Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01972/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01972-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Airea 5150, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

5150 Customs, et al., 

Defendants. 

5150 Customs, 

Counter-Claimant,

vs.

Airea 5150, Inc., et al.,

Counter-Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1972-PHX-SMM

ORDER

On June 22, 2006, counsel for Plaintiff Airea 5150, Inc (“Airea”) and counsel for

Defendant 5150 Customs (“Customs”) appeared for a Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial

Conference. In violation of the Order scheduling the conference, however, both attorneys

failed to appear with a representative from each of their respective clients. See Dkt. 27 at 2,

¶2 (“IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL OF RECORD, EACH PARTY OR A

REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH PARTY (WHO IS NOT COUNSEL OF RECORD)

Case 2:05-cv-01972-SMM Document 32 Filed 06/23/06 Page 1 of 3
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 - 2 -

WITH BINDING SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY IF THE PARTY IS AN ENTITY,

SHALL BE PRESENT AT THE PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE.”). As

a result, the Court ordered the Preliminary Pretrial Conference to be continued to August 22,

2006 at 4 p.m.

 At the Pretrial Conference, counsel for both parties expressed the need to conduct

preliminary discovery before the August 22, 2006 Preliminary Pretrial Conference on the

grounds that such discovery may help to narrow or define the issues in the case. The Court

agreed that the Preliminary Pretrial Conference would be much more productive if the parties

conducted limited discovery and exchanged initial disclosures in the interim sixty days. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Preliminary Pretrial Conference shall be held in

Courtroom 605 on August 22, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that IN ADDITION TO COUNSEL OF RECORD,

EACH PARTY OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF EACH PARTY (WHO IS NOT

COUNSEL OF RECORD) WITH BINDING SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY IF THE

PARTY IS AN ENTITY, SHALL BE PRESENT AT THE PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE scheduled to take place on August 22, 2006. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the interim sixty (60) days, both parties shall

conduct discovery limited to the following issue: The origin and use of the term “5150.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

30(d)(2), there shall be a time limit of four hours to conduct a deposition of any witness in

this case. Additional time shall be allowed where the deponent or a party impedes or delays

the examination. This time limit may only be extended by Order of this Court upon motion

of any party that demonstrates good cause for doing so. Counsel shall conduct themselves

courteously and professionally, especially during the taking of depositions. Any objections

made during the course of a deposition must be in accordance with Rule 26(d)(1) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:05-cv-01972-SMM Document 32 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 3
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 - 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Initial Disclosures as defined in Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be made no later than July 10, 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26(a), the parties shall file with the Clerk of the Court a Notice of Initial

Disclosure, rather than copies of the actual disclosures. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event of a discovery dispute, the parties

shall contact the Court to request a telephonic conference prior to filing any discovery

motions. The parties shall not contact the Court regarding a discovery dispute unless they

have been unable to resolve the dispute themselves, despite personal consultation and sincere

efforts to do so. The parties shall not file any written materials related to a discovery dispute

or discovery motion without express leave of Court. If the Court does order written

submissions, the movant shall include a statement certifying that counsel could not

satisfactorily resolve the matter despite personal consultation and sincere efforts to do so, in

accordance with LRCiv 7.2(j) of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for

the District of Arizona. 

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01972-SMM Document 32 Filed 06/23/06 Page 3 of 3