Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Konecranes Global Corp. v. Mode Tech (Beijing) Co. Ltd.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 30, 2019

KONECRANES GLOBAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
MODE TECH Beijing Co., Ltd., Defendant.

          BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC, Christopher M. Joe, Kenneth P. Kula, Brian A. Carpenter, Daniel T. Foley, Esq., FOLEY & OAKES, PC Attorneys for Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

          McDonald Carano LLP, Kristen T. Gallagher, Amanda C. Yen, David P. Shouvlin, PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP Attorneys for Konecranes Global Corporation.

          AMENDED DISCOVERY PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER SPECIAL SCHEDULING REVIEW REQUESTED FOR A PATENT CASE

          NANCY J. KOPPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Pursuant to the Court's Orders dated April 5, 2019 and April 8, 2019, as well as Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 26-1, and the Local Patent Rules, Plaintiff Konecranes Global Corporation ("Konecranes") and Defendant Mode Tech (Beijing) Co., Ltd. ("Mode Tech") submit the below-provided Amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. The parties have amended the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order to reflect that this plan is agreed upon and not a "tentative" plan.[1]

         Furthermore, in accordance with Local Rule 26-1(a), which states, in part, "Plans requesting special scheduling review must include, in addition to the information required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) and LR 26-1(b), a statement of the reasons why longer or different time periods should apply to the case," LR 26-1(a), the parties provide the following statement: The parties request this limited additional time in light of Mode Tech's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Properly Effectuate Service of Process, ECF No. 30. The motion is fully briefed and before the Court. In addition, Plaintiff Konecranes is based in Hyvinkaa, Finland, and Defendant Mode Tech is based in Beijing, China; facilitating the claim construction and discovery processes internationally will likely require additional time.

         I. INFORMATION PROVIDED PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) and LR 26-1

         A. Initial Disclosures:

         The parties propose to serve initial disclosure statements pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) no later than July 1, 2019.

         B. Subjects, Timing, And Phasing Of Discovery:

         None.

         C. Issues Regarding Disclosure Of Electronically Stored Information:

         The parties will prepare a detailed stipulation governing the discovery of electronically stored information, to be filed with the Court.

         D. Issues About Claims Of Privilege/Protection Of Trial Preparation Materials:

         The parties intend to adopt the provisions set forth in Fed.R.Evid. 502(d) and (e) governing the inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected documents. The parties shall submit the proposed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.