Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 30 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2339
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`::
`
`::
`
`: C.A. No. 17-770-RGA-MPT
`:
`
`::
`
`:
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`
`At Wilmington this 5th day of August, 2021.
`
`A Scheduling Order dated July 23, 2021 (D.I. 28) having been entered by The
`
`Honorable Richard G. Andrews referring discovery in this matter to Chief Magistrate Judge
`
`Thynge, paragraph 3.g. of the Scheduling Order at D.I. 28 is replaced and modified as
`
`follows:
`
`Discovery Matters. Should counsel find they are unable to resolve a
`
`discovery matter or other matters covered by this provision,1 including redactions of the
`
`record transcript involving prior discovery matters, the parties involved shall contact
`
`chambers at (302) 573-6173 to schedule a telephone conference. At that time, counsel
`
`shall advise which parties have disputes, and each moving party shall raise no more than
`
`three (3) issues per motion/teleconference. Thereafter, the moving party or parties shall
`
`each file a “Motion for Teleconference To Resolve Discovery Dispute(s).”2
`
`1 To meet the import of that phrase, counsel, including Delaware counsel, are
`expected to verbally discuss the issues/concerns before seeking the Court’s intervention.
`2 The suggested text for this motion can be found on the Court’s chambers website
`in the “Forms” tab, in the document entitled “Motion for Teleconference for Discovery
`Matters Form.”
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`::
`
`::
`
`: C.A. No. 17-770-RGA-MPT
`:
`
`::
`
`:
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CATERPILLAR, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`
`At Wilmington this 5th day of August, 2021.
`
`A Scheduling Order dated July 23, 2021 (D.I. 28) having been entered by The
`
`Honorable Richard G. Andrews referring discovery in this matter to Chief Magistrate Judge
`
`Thynge, paragraph 3.g. of the Scheduling Order at D.I. 28 is replaced and modified as
`
`follows:
`
`Discovery Matters. Should counsel find they are unable to resolve a
`
`discovery matter or other matters covered by this provision,1 including redactions of the
`
`record transcript involving prior discovery matters, the parties involved shall contact
`
`chambers at (302) 573-6173 to schedule a telephone conference. At that time, counsel
`
`shall advise which parties have disputes, and each moving party shall raise no more than
`
`three (3) issues per motion/teleconference. Thereafter, the moving party or parties shall
`
`each file a “Motion for Teleconference To Resolve Discovery Dispute(s).”2
`
`1 To meet the import of that phrase, counsel, including Delaware counsel, are
`expected to verbally discuss the issues/concerns before seeking the Court’s intervention.
`2 The suggested text for this motion can be found on the Court’s chambers website
`in the “Forms” tab, in the document entitled “Motion for Teleconference for Discovery
`Matters Form.”
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 30 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2340
`
`The following procedures shall apply:
`
`1.
`
`Not less than ninety-six (96) hours prior to the conference,
`
`excluding weekends and holidays, the party seeking relief shall file a letter with the
`
`Court, not to exceed four (4) pages, in no less than 12 point font, outlining the issues in
`
`dispute and its position on those issues. Not less than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the
`
`conference, excluding weekends and holidays, any party opposing the application for
`
`relief may file a letter, not to exceed four (4) pages, in no less than 12 point font,
`
`outlining that party’s reason for its opposition. Submissions shall be single sided
`
`and the pages numbered.
`
`2.
`
`Attachments/Exhibits: Generally, there should be limited
`
`attachments or exhibits to the letters. For example, in a protective order dispute, only
`
`the provisions at issue should be attached. Similarly, regarding interrogatory/request
`
`for production issues, only the disputed interrogatory or request for production and the
`
`responses as they exist at the time of the letter submissions should be attached.3 The
`
`parties attempts to resolve and/or narrow the issues as contained in letters or emails
`
`shall not be included; however, suggested solutions to the issues shall be included in
`
`the letter submissions. Cases/transcripts cited and relied upon in the letter submission
`
`may be attached as exhibits.
`
`3.
`
`To the extent factual issues are disputed or central to the Court’s
`
`3 The history through emails, letters and meet-and-confers resulting in modification
`of the original interrogatory or request for production shall not be attached. If the
`interrogatory or request for production is modified to which an objection remains, only the
`modified interrogatory/request for production and the answer/response shall be attached,
`and only the current positions of the parties shall be reflected in the letter submissions.
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00770-RGA-MPT Document 30 Filed 08/05/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2341
`
`analysis,4 non-conclusory, sworn declarations, only to the extent necessary to establish
`
`the facts, shall be attached as exhibit(s).
`
`4.
`
`A proposed order, attached as an exhibit, setting out in detail the
`
`nature of the relief requested, including the date by which the requested relief is to be
`
`completed. The same procedure outlined above shall apply to protective order
`
`drafting disputes, except a “Joint Motion for Teleconference To Resolve Protective
`
`Order Dispute,” shall be filed and the parties are limited to a total of three (3) issues
`
`with one submission each. The submissions shall include the party’s proposal of the
`
`content for the disputed portion(s) of the protective order.
`
`Should the Court find further briefing necessary upon conclusion of the
`
`telephonic conference, the Court will order it.
`
`No motions to compel or motions for protective order shall be filed absent
`
`approval of the court. Absent expressed approval of the court following a discovery
`
`conference, no motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 shall be filed.
`
`Counsel shall provide a list of the teleconference participants. This list
`
`shall be included as an attachment after the signature page and will not be counted
`
`as part of the page limitation for the letter submission.
`
`
`
`/s/ Mary Pat Thynge
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`4 For example, matters addressing attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine,
`common interest doctrine, sufficiency of privilege log and other similar issues often involve
`factual evidence for which affidavits may be required. See RCA v. Data General, C.A. No.
`84-270-JJF, 1986 WL 15693 (D. Del. July 2, 1986); Willemijn Houdstermaatschaapij v.
`Apollo Computers, Inc., 707 F. Supp. 1429 (D. Del. 1989).
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
