Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04255/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04255-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

Irwin B. Schwartz (SBN 141140) 

John V. Komar (SBN 169662) 

Business Litigation Associates, P.C. 

2033 Gateway Place, Suite 500 

San Jose, California 95110 

Telephone: 408-947-9099 

Facsimile: 408-947-9001 

Attorneys for Defendant and Third-Party

Plaintiff Riverdeep, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CADSOFT CORPORATION, a foreign

corporation,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

RIVERDEEP, LLC, a Delaware Limited

Liability Company, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C06-4255 SC 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

[PROPOSED] CONTINUING TRIAL 

DATE AND CASE MANAGEMENT

DEADLINES

Hon: Samuel Conti 

RIVERDEEP, INC., LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company,

 Third-Party Plaintiff,

vs.

Punch Software, LLC, a Delaware 

corporation,

 Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff Cadsoft Corporation (“Cadsoft”), Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Riverdeep, 

Inc., LLC, and Third-Party Defendant Punch Software, LLC (“Punch”) stipulate that the trial 

Stipulation and Order [Proposed] 1 C06 4255 SC

Case 3:06-cv-04255-SC Document 70 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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

date in this matter, currently set for November 5, 2007 should be continued until February 18, 

2008, as follows: 

1. The parties have been diligently prosecuting their respective positions in this 

litigation. Currently, trial is set for November 5, 2007. The discovery cutoff is October 5, 

2007, with expert disclosure set for September 17, 2007. However, several things have 

happened since the trial date was originally set in this case that the parties believe warrant 

continuing the trial date until February 2008 and continuing associated case management

deadlines accordingly.

2. On August 8, 2007, plaintiff Cadsoft filed an amended complaint adding a claim

for copyright infringement. Plaintiff seeks to enforce the copyright, which is a Canadian 

copyright, under the provisions of the Berne Convention. Defendant Riverdeep needs 

additional time to seek discovery into the copyright claim so that it may fully evaluate that 

claim, and make informed decisions about finding and retaining relevant experts which may

include experts on Canadian law. Riverdeep further needs this discovery and time to evaluate 

and to determine whether the claim is subject to resolution by dispositive motion. Given its 

recent addition of the copyright claim, plaintiff Cadsoft does not oppose this additional time for 

discovery and expert designation. Third party defendant Punch, similarly, does not oppose this 

additional time for discovery and expert designation. Simply, there is insufficient time to 

complete discovery into the copyright claim, find and retain experts, and make a determination

on any dispositive motions prior to the expert disclosure date and trial date.

3. Next, a key Riverdeep witness and participant in this case, the Riverdeep General 

Counsel, will be on her honeymoon during the time currently set for trial. At the time the case 

was set for trial, Riverdeep was unclear whether she would be a witness at trial. As the case 

Stipulation and Order [Proposed] 2 C06 4255 SC

Case 3:06-cv-04255-SC Document 70 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

progressed, however, the essential nature of her testimony became clear, and Riverdeep believes 

it would be prejudiced if forced to try this case without her live testimony. Cadsoft agrees that 

her testimony is necessary and intends to call her as a witness.

4. There are currently several discovery disputes amongst the parties. While Cadsoft 

has filed a motion to compel, the hearing date has not been set by the Magistrate Judge. The 

results of that motion could impose significant additional discovery obligations that cannot be 

completed before expert disclosure, and potentially trial, including the re-creation of an 

archived database. In addition, due to scheduling difficulties, the parties only recently 

completed some essential depositions. The parties anticipate several discovery disputes arising

out of those depositions that will likely require resolution by this court. But, transcripts have 

not yet been received, which means the parties cannot have a meaningful meet and confer about 

the specific areas of inquiry at issue, and cannot yet file motions. Again, there is insufficient 

time ahead of the discovery cutoff and expert disclosure deadline to resolve these discovery

issues.

5. The parties agree that continuing the trial until February will give them sufficient 

time to resolve all discovery issues, complete discovery, identify and retain experts, and

properly prepare for trial. As far as setting a specific trial date, the only restrictions are that the 

trial should not take place February 12-16, as certain witnesses are unavailable that week.

Assuming a trial date of February 18, 2007, the parties also stipulate to the following case 

management deadlines:

Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: December 1, 2008 

Expert Disclosure: December 7, 2008 

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: January 20, 2008 

Stipulation and Order [Proposed] 3 C06 4255 SC

Case 3:06-cv-04255-SC Document 70 Filed 09/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Last day to hear dispositive motions: January 15, 2008 

Expert Discovery Cutoff: January 15, 2008 

Pretrial Conference: February 15, 2008 

Trial: February 18, 2008 

Dated: September 5, 2007 BUSINESS LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.

_/s/ _____________________

Irwin B. Schwartz 

John V. Komar

Attorneys for Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff 

Riverdeep Inc., LLC 

Dated: September 5, 2007 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 

_/s/ _____________________

P. Craig Cardon 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Cadsoft Corporation 

Dated: September 5, 2007 SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP

_/s/ _______________

Amy L. Hespenheide 

Mary Jo Shartsis 

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant Punch Software, LLC 

I, John V. Komar, attest that P. Craig Cardon, counsel for Plaintiff Cadsoft Corporation 

and Amy L. Hespenheide, counsel for Third-Party Defendant Punch Software, LLC have 

concurred in the filing of this document.

So Ordered: 

 ________________________________________ 

 United States District Judge

Stipulation and Order [Proposed] 4 C06 4255 SC

11

at 10:00 a.m.

at 10:00 a.m.

at 9:30 a.m.

9/7/07

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

8

19

Case 3:06-cv-04255-SC Document 70 Filed 09/07/07 Page 4 of 4