Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01296/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01296-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Plaintiff's statement at the case management conference held on January 9, 2005, that the Court's

scheduling order only required that a rebuttal expert report be filed by the date of the expert's deposition is

a misreading of the Court's Order. In the Court's Order Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of

Pretrial Deadlines (Docket Item No. 237), section D limits the testimony of experts at trial to information

which was disclosed prior to the expert's deposition; it does not address, at all, the deadline for timely filing

of expert reports. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Pretrial Deadlines was filed on June 22, 2005, well

after the deadline for rebuttal expert reports had passed, and did not request an extension for the filing of

expert reports. (Docket Item No. 213.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Regal Electronics, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Pulse Engineering Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

 /

NO. C 03-01296 JW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

EXCLUDE DR. WILLIAM E. KUNZ 

Presently before the Court is Defendant Pulse's Motion to Dismiss an Expert and/or his Testimony

regarding Dr. William E. Kunz (Docket Item No. 219.) Pulse's motion is based on the untimely disclosure

by Plaintiff Regal of Dr. Kunz's rebuttal expert report. Regal submitted Dr. Kunz's expert report on

November 29, 2005, the day before the Court-ordered discovery cutoff (Docket Item No. 237), and the

day before Pulse's scheduled deposition of Dr. Kunz. Under the date stipulated to by the parties, rebuttal

expert reports were to be filed on or before May 2, 2005. (Docket Item No. 173.)1 Although the Court

DENIES Pulse's motion to exclude Dr. Kunz at this time, Pulse may choose to file, if appropriate, a motion

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 303 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

for sanctions against Regal in an effort to recover costs incurred as a result of Regal's delay. This Order

does not preclude a later motion in limine regarding Dr. Kunz.

Dated: January 9, 2006

03cv1296exp_kunz

 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 303 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Aimee Kolz akolz@bannerwitcoff.com

Andres N. Madrid Amadrid@steinbergraskin.com

Charles Wilbur Shifley cshifley@bannerwitcoff.com

Daniel T. Shvodian shvodiand@howrey.com

Joshua L. Raskin Jraskin@steinbergraskin.com

Mark K. Dickson mdickson@winston.com

Mark Thomas Banner mbanner@bannerwitcoff.com

Martin C. Fliesler mcf@fdml.com

Martin G. Raskin mraskin@steinbergraskin.com

Michael L. Krashin mkrashin@bannerwitcoff.com

Stephen Christopher Kyriacou kyriacouc@howrey.com

Thomas K. Pratt tpratt@bannerwitcoff.com

W. Carlos Leet wcl@rslattorneys.com

Dated: January 9, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:_/s/ JW Chambers____________

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 303 Filed 01/10/06 Page 3 of 3