Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 508 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 43237
`
`1313 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
`302 984 6000
`www.potteranderson.com
`
`Philip A. Rovner
`Partner
`Attorney at Law
`provner@potteranderson.com
`302 984-6140 Direct Phone
`302 658-1192 Firm Fax
`
`November 20, 2018
`
`BY CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`U.S. Courthouse
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Re:
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc.,
`D. Del., C.A. Nos. 16-454-RGA
`
`Dear Judge Andrews:
`
`Acceleration Bay respectfully requests that the Court defer oral argument on the Parties’
`Daubert and summary judgment motions (currently scheduled for December 19, 2018) until the
`resolution of damages issues in related case, C.A. No. 16-453-RGA (the “Activision Action”).1
`First, some of the damages issues in this case are moot based on the Court’s rulings in the
`Activision Action. Second, the remaining issues may change based on the Court’s resolution of
`Acceleration Bay’s damages proffer in the Activision Action. Thus, the Court’s decision in the
`Activision Action will inform the resolution of parallel issues presented in this Action and waiting
`for that decision will promote judicial economy.
`
` In the Activision Action, the Court ordered that Acceleration Bay may supplement its
`damages case. C.A. No. 16-453, D.I. 619. Acceleration Bay intends to seek leave from the Court
`to provide a similar supplemental report in this Action (as well as in the case against Take Two).
`EA has indicated that it will submit a responsive supplemental damages report and will likely file
`a further motion challenging Acceleration Bay’s supplemental damages case. Thus, the Parties’
`respective pending Daubert/summary judgment motions in this action present numerous damages
`issues which will likely soon be mooted or, at a minimum, outdated based on supplemental reports
`and further briefing.
`
`It is neither necessary nor beneficial to have an argument on reports that will be
`supplemented and motions that will soon be out of date. The Parties agree that the Activision
`Action should go to trial before this case and that the EA trial date should be taken off calendar
`pending further developments in the Activision case. Therefore, there will be no prejudice to EA
`
`1 Acceleration Bay moved to preclude the opinions of EA’s damages expert under Daubert and
`EA moved for relief on fourteen different damages issues. D.I. 437, 425.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 508 Filed 11/20/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 43238
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`November 20, 2018
`Page 2
`
`from deferring resolution of the Daubert/summary judgment motions until after a decision in the
`Activision Action.
`
`Another reason to defer oral argument in this case is that the Court is still resolving
`damages issues in the Activision Action. The Court’s resolution of parallel motions in the
`Activision Action is likely to inform, if not resolve, the parties’ similar disputes in this case, as EA
`itself recently argued in a submission to the Court. D.I. 502.
`
`Accordingly, Acceleration Bay requests a schedule where the Court and parties focus their
`efforts on resolving the damages issues in the Activision Action and getting that case ready for
`trial. Then, the parties can turn to resolving the parallel issues in this case, rather than waste the
`resources of the Court and the parties on motions that are soon to be at least partially stale.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Philip A. Rovner
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`
`cc:
`6007219
`
`All Counsel of Record (Via ECF Filing, Electronic Mail)
`
`