`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TARGET CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` Case No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP
` (LEAD CASE)
`
`ORDER
`
`On July 23, 2021, the Court held a pretrial conference as well as a hearing on
`
`Plaintiff Estech Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Reconsider or Clarify Court’s Memorandum Opinion
`
`Regarding Plaintiff’s Damages Expert Report (“Motion to Reconsider”) (Dkt. No. 296). See Dkt.
`
`No. 300. The Court subsequently issued an Order to reset deadlines based on necessity of
`
`additional expert supplementation. Dkt. No. 299. On August 20, 2021, the Court held a scheduling
`
`conference at which time the Court informed the parties that consolidated case Estech v. Wells
`
`Fargo & Company et. al. (2:20-cv-00128-JRG-RSP) will be tried first, followed by Estech v.
`
`BOKF, National Association (2:20-cv-00126-JRG-RSP). The Court sets the following deadlines:
`
`Date
`
`Event
`
`Jury Selection – 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
`October 4, 2021
`September 30, 2021 Pretrial Conference – 1 p.m. in Marshall, Texas before Judge Payne.
`September 27, 2021 Reply to Dispositive Motions.
`September 24, 2021 Response to Dispositive Motions.
`September 21, 2021 File Dispositive Motions, based on supplemental expert reports.
`September 17, 2021 Both Parties’ Complete Supplemental Expert Depositions.
`September 8, 2021
`Defendants Serve Rebuttal Supplemental Expert Reports, as described
`in August 20, 2021 Scheduling Conference.
`Estech Serve Supplemental Expert Reports, as described in August 20,
`2021 Scheduling Conference.
`
`August 25, 2021
`
`Ex. 2011
`RingCentral, Inc. v. Estech Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 306 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 25673
`
`After consideration, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART Estech’s Motion to Reconsider.
`
`Based on the reasoning provided at the July 23, 2021 pretrial conference, the Court grants
`
`Estech leave to amend Mr. Blok’s opinions as detailed in their Motion to Reconsider, except Mr.
`
`Blok’s paragraph 125. Estech has not convinced the Court that the opinions expressed in
`
`paragraph 125 are capable of being formed solely by Mr. Blok without the support of Mr. Platt.
`
`During the August 20, 2021 hearing, the Defendants moved the Court to reconsider
`
`excluding John Toebas from testifying at trial. After consideration, the Court GRANTS-IN-
`
`PART Defendants’ oral motion. The Court’s previous Order relied on notice and disclosure
`
`concerns Estech raised at the earlier pretrial conference. Mr. Toebas has now been deposed
`
`twice, the trial has been delayed, and Estech has been adequately noticed as to the topics Mr.
`
`Toebas is knowledgeable. Mr. Toebas’ testimony at trial, however, will be limited to the scope
`
`of his testimony in his previous depositions, similar to what would be expected from an expert
`
`report.
`
`For clarity, as per Defendants’ agreement during the August 20, 2021 scheduling
`
`conference, Defendants will not be permitted to supplement Dr. Magnussen’s report.
`
`
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
