Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02732/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02732-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Panoptx, Inc.
Counter-claimant
Protective Optics, Inc.
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND REPORTS

CASE NO. C05-02732 CRB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PROTECTIVE OPTICS, INC.,

a California corporation

Plaintiff,

v.

PANOPTX INC.,

a California corporation

Defendant.

Case No. C05-02732 CRB

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR EXPERT

DISCLOSURES AND REPORTS

Courtroom: 8, 19

th

Floor

Before: Hon. Charles R. Breyer

[Trial Date: August 6, 2007]

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

E. Patrick Ellisen, CA Bar No. 142033

ellisenp@gtlaw.com

Daniel T. McCloskey, CA Bar No. 191944

mccloskeyd@gtlaw.com

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

1900 University Avenue 5th Floor

East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Telephone: (650) 328-8500

Facsimile: (650) 328-8508

Brian A. Carpenter, pro hac vice

carpenterb@gtlaw.com

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

1200 17th Street, Suite 2400

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 572-6500

Facsimile: (303) 572-6540

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant,

PROTECTIVE OPTICS, INC.

Case 3:05-cv-02732-CRB Document 159 Filed 05/10/07 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

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND REPORTS

CASE NO. C05-02732 CRB

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Protective Optics, Inc. (“Protective Optics”) and

Defendant and Counterclaimant Panoptx, Inc. (“Panoptx”), by and through their undersigned counsel,

state and agree as follows:

Whereas, the parties have agreed, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), that

with respect to those issues on which the party has the burden of proof, expert disclosures and reports

are due on May 8, 2007, responsive reports are due on June 7, 2007, and the parties shall

simultaneously exchange rebuttal reports on June 21, 2007;

Whereas, Protective Optics has retained Kenneth Frederick as an industry expert for the

purpose of rendering opinions relating to trade secret misappropriation, willful infringement,

secondary considerations of non-obviousness and market definition in this action;

Whereas, on April 4, 2007, Protective Optics disclosed Mr. Frederick to Panoptx’s counsel

under the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order, providing Panoptx with Mr. Frederick’s

curriculum vitae and information about his professional experience and affiliations;

Whereas, on or about April 24, counsel for Protective Optics was advised by Mr. Frederick’s

wife that Mr. Frederick was seriously ill, and had been hospitalized in “poor condition” with an

undetermined condition and prognosis;

Whereas, on April 30, counsel for Protective Optics called Mrs. Frederick to obtain an update

on Mr. Frederick’s condition to determine whether he would be capable of serving as an expert in this

matter, and left a message for her that was not returned that day;

Whereas, on May 1, counsel for Protective Optics called Mrs. Frederick again and reached her

at which time she explained that Mr. Frederick had contracted chicken pox and that it had spread to

his lungs and throat, that while he had been released from the hospital the previous evening, he had

difficulty speaking, was confined to the home, and was and would be taking “heavy” pain medication

for at least several weeks;

Whereas, Mrs. Frederick estimated that Mr. Frederick would likely not be in a position to

return to work on this matter for at least 30 days;

Case 3:05-cv-02732-CRB Document 159 Filed 05/10/07 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

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND REPORTS

CASE NO. C05-02732 CRB

Whereas, based on the foregoing information, counsel for Protective Optics determined that

Mr. Frederick would not be in a position to render opinions and prepare a report in time for the May 8

or June 7 deadlines, and might not be able to serve as an expert at all, given the state of his health;

Whereas, on May 2, counsel for Protective Optics contacted counsel for Panoptx via e-mail to

inform them of Mr. Frederick’s condition, and to propose that the parties agree to a limited extension

of the time to serve Mr. Frederick’s expert report to allow him sufficient time to recover or to allow

Protective Optics sufficient time to retain an alternative expert, and suggested that counsel discuss the

matter the following day;

Whereas, on May 3, counsel for Protective Optics spoke with counsel for Panoptx and

explained the foregoing circumstances, and proposed that the parties agree to a 30 day extension for

Mr. Frederick or his replacement to produce a report, and that Panoptx would have 30 days to

respond to the opinions stated in the report;

Whereas, on May 4, counsel for the parties agreed that, apart from the general expert

disclosure scheduled to which they had agreed, Protective Optics will have to and including June 7,

2007, to disclose an industry expert and to serve a corresponding report on the issues stated herein on

which Mr. Frederick would have rendered opinions;

Whereas, counsel for the parties further agreed that Panoptx will have forty-five (45) days

from June 7, 2007 (until July 22) to disclose a corresponding industry expert and serve a report in

rebuttal to the opinions offered by Protective Optics’ industry expert;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties, subject to

Court approval, that:

1. Protective Optics will have to and including June 7, 2007, to disclose an industry

expert and to serve a corresponding report relating to trade secret misappropriation, willful

infringement, secondary considerations of non-obviousness and market definition in this action; and

2. Panoptx will have forty-five (45) days from June 7, 2007 (until July 22) to disclose a

corresponding industry expert and serve a report in rebuttal to the opinions offered by Protective

Optics’ industry expert.

Case 3:05-cv-02732-CRB Document 159 Filed 05/10/07 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

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURES AND REPORTS

CASE NO. C05-02732 CRB

DATED: May 8, 2007 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

By: /s/ Daniel T. McCloskey

Daniel T. McCloskey

Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant,

PROTECTIVE OPTICS, INC.

DATED: May 8, 2007 KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN, LLP

By: /s/ Kenneth E. Keller

Kenneth E. Keller

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant,

PANOPTX, INC.

I, Daniel T. McCloskey, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Modifying Schedule for Expert Disclosures and Reports. In

compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Kenneth Keller has concurred in this

filing.

Dated: May 8, 2007 By: /s/ Daniel T. McCloskey

Daniel T. McCloskey

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HON. CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

May 9, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:05-cv-02732-CRB Document 159 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 4