Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03820/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03820-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

_________

SECOND STIPULATED APPLICATON FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER 

CASE NO. CV 813984 JW (ARB) 

-1-

______________________________________________________________________

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

FLYNN, DELICH & WISE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

ONE CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 350

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

(415) 693-5566 

JAMES B. NEBEL (SBN 69626) 

FLYNN, DELICH & WISE LLP 

One California Street, Suite 350 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 693-5566 

Facsimile: (415) 693-0410 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MID-AMERICA OVERSEAS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

PROXIM CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

MID-AMERICA OVERSEAS, INC.; 

EASTERN MARINE UNDERWRITERS; 

AUSTRIAN AIRLINES; and DOES 1 

through 20, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS AND 

COUNTERCLAIM

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.: C 03 03820 JW (ARB) 

SECOND STIPULATED APPLICATION 

FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT TO 

SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER FURTHER 

AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER 

The remaining parties to this action, plaintiff PROXIM 

CORPORATION and defendant MID-AMERICA OVERSEAS, INC., hereby 

stipulate and agree as follows: 

 1. On April 13, 2005, at the request of the parties, the 

Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order in this action. Among 

other things, the Court set the matter for Preliminary Pretrial 

and Trial Setting Conference on November 20, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.

Before that Amended Scheduling Order was entered, the Court had 

set the matter for Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:03-cv-03820-JW Document 57 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 5
_______________________________________________________________________________

SECOND STIPULATED APPLICATON FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER 

CASE NO. CV 813984 JW (ARB) 

-2-

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

FLYNN, DELICH & WISE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

ONE CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 350

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

(415) 693-5566 

Conference for September 12, 2005. In addition to re-setting the 

Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference, the Court’s 

Amended Order amended the schedule for various other events.

 2. The parties had made the request for the Amended 

Scheduling Order because of the pendency of a related action that 

Proxim Corporation filed against Maritime Insurance Company 

(“MIC”) and its affiliate, Eastern Marine Underwriters (“EMU”), 

in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

(MIC was a defendant in this action but was dismissed on the 

basis of a forum-selection clause in the pertinent insurance 

policy.) Plaintiff has recently confirmed that the Canadian 

action between Proxim and MIC and EMU is going to be re-set in 

the near future for a date estimated to be during the second 

quarter of 2007.

 3. At the time of their request for the Amended Scheduling 

Order, Proxim and Mid-America believed that a resolution of the 

Canadian action would benefit both parties in facilitating their 

assessments of their positions here, and could well lead to a 

settlement of Proxim’s claims against Mid-America. Conversely, 

if both actions continued on pace for trial, it was possible that 

the results in the two actions could be inconsistent and thus 

prejudice either Proxim or Mid-America.

 4. The reasons that motivated Proxim and Mid-America to 

seek the former amendment still exist. In order to enable 

maximum saving of costs by the parties and judicial resources, 

the parties request that this Court continue the current trial 

setting conference and all associated dates in the pending Court 

order dated April 13, 2005 approximately one year (give or take a 

Case 5:03-cv-03820-JW Document 57 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 5
_______________________________________________________________________________

SECOND STIPULATED APPLICATON FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER 

CASE NO. CV 813984 JW (ARB) 

-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

FLYNN, DELICH & WISE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

ONE CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 350

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

(415) 693-5566 

day or two to conform to the Court’s calendar) such that the 

trial setting conference will be on November 19, 2007 or soon 

thereafter as is convenient to the Court's calendar. Both 

parties believe that a substantial further extension of the 

Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference would allow the 

Canadian action to run its course and thus alleviate the parties’ 

concerns relating to the overlapping of issues in the two actions 

in light of the fact that MIC and EMU are not present in this 

action and Mid-America is not present in the Canadian action. 

5. Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree that the 

Amended Scheduling Order be further amended and that the 

following dates be established. (Those parts of the Amended 

Scheduling Order that do not relate to dates or deadlines shall 

remain in force and effect): 

D. Disclosure of Expert Witnesses

6. Any party wishing to present expert witness testimony 

with respect to a claim or defense shall lodge with the Court and 

serve on all other parties the name, address, qualifications, 

résumé and a written report which complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 

26(a)(2)(B) on or before May 7, 2007 for the plaintiff and May

28, 2007 for the defendant. 

7. Any party objecting to the qualifications or proposed 

testimony of an expert must file, serve and notice a motion to 

exclude the expert or any portion of the expert’s testimony in 

writing in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, for hearing no 

later than August 6, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

////

Case 5:03-cv-03820-JW Document 57 Filed 04/18/06 Page 3 of 5
_______________________________________________________________________________

SECOND STIPULATED APPLICATON FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER 

CASE NO. CV 813984 JW (ARB) 

-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

FLYNN, DELICH & WISE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

ONE CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 350

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

(415) 693-5566 

 E. Rebuttal Expert Witnesses

8. If the testimony of the expert is intended solely to 

contradict or rebut opinion testimony on the same subject matter 

identified by another party, the party proffering a rebuttal 

expert shall make the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 

26(a)(2)(B), no later than June 29, 2007.

 G. Close of Discovery

 9. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 26-2, all discovery, including 

supplemental disclosure, depositions of expert witnesses must be 

completed by August 31, 2007.

 H. Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions

 10. The last day for hearing dispositive motions is October

15, 2006. Any motions must be noticed in accordance with the 

Local Rules of Court. 

I. Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference 

Statement and Proposed Order

11. The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to 

confer with one another and to file and lodge with Chambers on or 

before November 2, 2007, a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting 

Conference Statement and Proposed Order, stating their readiness 

for trial, the amount of time which the Court should allocate for 

trial and the calendar period for the trial. Ordinarily, 

depending on the length of the trial the Court will set the trial 

during a calendar period approximately three to four months after 

the Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference. In the 

Statement discussed in this paragraph, the parties should show 

any cause why the case should be advanced or delayed beyond this 

point.

Case 5:03-cv-03820-JW Document 57 Filed 04/18/06 Page 4 of 5
_______________________________________________________________________________

SECOND STIPULATED APPLICATON FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULING ORDER 

CASE NO. CV 813984 JW (ARB) 

-5-

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

FLYNN, DELICH & WISE

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

ONE CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 350

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 

(415) 693-5566 

12. The attorneys who will try the case are ordered to 

appear on November 19, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. for a Preliminary 

Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: April __, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE W. NOWELL 

 By: ________/s/_________ 

 George W. Nowell 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 PROXIM CORPORATION 

Dated: April __, 2006 FLYNN, DELICH & WISE LLP 

 By: _______/s/________ 

 James B. Nebel 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 MID-AMERICA OVERSEAS, INC. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

April 18, 2006

Case 5:03-cv-03820-JW Document 57 Filed 04/18/06 Page 5 of 5