A.; and Montblanc-Simplo GMBH (collectively “Defendants” and, together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”) hereby stipulate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) that: 1.

All of Plaintiff's claims and causes of action found in its Third-Amended Complaint (Docket No. 67) be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE;and 2, All of Defendant’s claimsand causes of action foundin their Counterclaims (Docket No. 98) be dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 3.

All Parties to bear that party’s own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)Gi), IT IS ORDERD THAT THIS ACTION, AND HEREBY IS, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICEasto all claims, causes of action found in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (Docket No. 67) and HEREBY IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICEasto all claims and causesof action found in Defendants’ Counterclaims (Docket No. 98) with each party bearing that party’s own attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Clerk is directed to close the file, Dated: September 2 , 2023 i(($vBRAMANIAN United States District Judge

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge: On September 27, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff moved to withdraw.

Plaintiff’s CEO, Christopher Aire, called the Court requesting permission to respond to this motion.

The letter should specifically address the “irreconcilable conflicts” between counsel and Plaintiff and should be furnished to Mr. Aire.

The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a conference on this motion in Courtroom 15A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 on September 29, 2023 at 2:00 PM.

United States District Judge

In anticipation of the final pretrial conference to be held on October 3, 2023, the Court advises the parties as follows: • The parties, and in particular Lead Trial Counsel, should meet and confer prior to the final pretrial conference to resolve evidentiary disputes over exhibits and other evidence the parties will seek to admit at trial (e.g., designated deposition testimony).

The parties should arrive for the pretrial conference at least one hour in advance and will be furnished use of the courtroom for the purposes of resolving disputes and streamling the issues to be presented to the Court.

The parties should call chambers when they arrive at the courthouse to secure access to the courtroom.

The Court intends to rule on all objections at the conference, and if time runs out on October 3, 2023, the Court will continue the conference on October 4, 2023, in order to resolve all objections.

• The parties should be prepared to complete the trial in five days and should avoid the presentation of extraneous, irrelevant, or duplicative testimony.

Dr. Vanderhart’s proposed supplemental report claims that she recalculated damages based on “the assumption that sales of products under the brands Montblanc, Baume & Mercier, and IWC would not be subject to the tolling agreement.” Dkt No. 279-1 ¶ 2.

Even assuming that the additional damages information is important, all other factors weigh heavily against allowing Plaintiff to supplement its disclosures or expert report at this stage.

Even assuming Mr. Aire’s characterization of the events is accurate, his explanation does not explain why these supplemental disclosures did not come sooner: Mr. Aire was permitted to see Dr. Vanderhart’s report nearly a year ago and has had substitute counsel for over four months.

In addition, as the Second Circuit has acknowledged, “the burden on the trial court of granting a continuance is greater” in cases like this one that “require extensive expert involvement over lengthy periods of time.” Softel, Inc., 118 F.3d at 962; see also Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis, 469 F.3d 284, 297 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming district court’s preclusion of a witness from testifying about damages when the witness had not been timely disclosed and “weighing heavily on both the prejudice and possibility of continuance factors was the fact that discovery had been closed for approximately one and a half years, and at the time of the offer of expert testimony there was only a short time left before trial” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

As discussed, the Court’s summary judgment ruling reduced Plaintiff’s damages model by approximately 90% based on certain tolling agreements.

None of these potential flaws warrants exclusion.

The request to extend time to oppose is granted until 11/15/2023 on behalf of potential opposer Loft Ipco LLC.