`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-305-JLH
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`ROBOCAST, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
`OBJECTIONS TO EXPERT REPORTS
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the Amended Scheduling Order requires that “[i]f a party believes that an
`
`expert report does not comply with the rules relating to timely disclosure or exceeds the scope of
`
`what is permitted in that expert report, the complaining party must notify the offending party within
`
`one (1) week of the submission of the expert report” (D.I. 266 ¶ 2(a));
`
`WHEREAS, the Amended Scheduling Order further provides that “[t]he parties are
`
`expected to promptly try to resolve any such disputes and, when they cannot reasonably be
`
`resolved, use the Court’s Discovery Dispute Procedure or the complaint will be waived”;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties exchanged opening expert reports on June 14, 2024 and objections
`
`consistent with Paragraph 2(a) of the Amended Scheduling Order (D.I. 266) on June 21, 2024;
`
`WHEREAS, Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) has also raised an issue concerning Robocast, Inc.’s
`
`(“Robocast”) production of expert reports from Mr. Hoffman, from a prior related litigation,
`
`which, in Netflix’s view, bear on the parties’ expert reports;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties met and conferred on July 9, 2024 regarding the objections
`
`exchanged on June 21, 2024 and Robocast’s production of expert reports from prior related
`
`litigations;
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 313 Filed 07/30/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 16136
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the parties exchanged rebuttal reports on July 11, 2024 and are due to
`
`exchange reply reports on August 6, 2024; and
`
`WHERAS, the parties conferred and believe that presenting disputes on opening, rebuttal,
`
`and reply reports at the same time will be more convenient and efficient for the Court and should
`
`not result in a waiver of timely-raised objections;
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, and
`
`subject to the approval of the Court, that the parties shall continue to comply with the deadlines in
`
`Paragraph 2(a) of the Amended Scheduling Order with respect to the exchange of objections and
`
`the obligation to promptly meet and confer but that any objections to expert reports, including
`
`those already disclosed and addressed above, should be raised together through the Court’s
`
`Discovery Dispute Procedures no later than August 23, 2024. The parties agree that abiding by
`
`the terms of this Stipulation and Order will not result in a waiver of any objections.
`
`IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, and
`
`subject to the approval of the Court, that, to the extent either side raises issues with more than one
`
`round of reports (i.e., opening, rebuttal, and reply), the parties’ opening and responsive
`
`submissions shall be permitted to be six (6) pages each.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952)
`Ronald P. Golden III (#6254)
`Bayard, P.A.
`600 North King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`rgolden@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Robocast, Inc.
`
`Dated: July 29, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`farnan@rlf.com
`
`Attorney for Defendant Netflix, Inc.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 313 Filed 07/30/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 16137
`
`SO ORDERED this ___day of ____________________, 2024.
`30th
`July
`
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`
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
