The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: POSTPONEMENT OF CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS
Intervenors Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. (collectively, Mitsubishi), Defendant Thomas A. Wilkins (Mr. Wilkins), 3 and Plaintiffs General Electric Company and GE Wind Energy, Inc. (collectively, GE), 4 through their counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 5
1. The parties are currently preparing a Joint Discovery Statement regarding certain 6 documents that were produced to counsel for Mitsubishi and counsel for Mr. Wilkins, but 7 which GE alleges are privileged. 8
2. The Court has scheduled a March 5, 2012 hearing to address the issues raised by 9 the Joint Discovery Statement. 0
3. Mitsubishi and Mr. Wilkins desire to take the depositions of certain witnesses who authored, received, or are believed to have knowledge of the allegedly privileged documents addressed in the Joint Discovery Statement.
4. Mitsubishi and Mr. Wilkins believe that their questioning of these witnesses will be unduly constrained if the witnesses are not shown the subject documents during their depositions.
5. The parties have recently reached agreement, subject to approval of this Court, to postpone the depositions of the eight witnesses listed below until after resolution by the Court of issues raised by the Joint Discovery Statement.
6. In particular, the parties have agreed to postpone the depositions of Ralph Blakemore; Craig Christenson; James Fogarty; Till Hoffmann; Frank Landgraff; James Lyons; Lisa Moyles; and Thomas Wagner, subject to approval of this Court.
7. The parties have further agreed that other scheduled depositions will proceed as scheduled prior to the February 23 fact discovery cutoff date, that postponement of the foregoing eight depositions would not justify the service of any additional discovery requests in this case, and that the postponement would not prejudice Mitsubishi's or Mr. Wilkins' rights in the future to seek to reopen any depositions taken before the March 5, 2012 hearing date.
8. The parties have also discussed the fact that the current scheduling order in this 2 case (Dkt. #251) provides for an expert disclosure deadline of March 15, 2012, and an 3 expert rebuttal deadline of April 12, 2012. 4
9. The parties have recognized that the prior scheduling order (Dkt. #191), through 5 an oversight, currently imposes a January 27, 2012 expert discovery deadline, and that 6 this deadline should have been changed when the current order was issued altering the 7 expert disclosure deadline. 8
10. The parties anticipate that, as a result of the proposed postponement of the eight 9 depositions identified above, some or all of the foregoing expert deadlines may require 0 minor adjustment.
11. The parties have agreed to work together to reach a reasonable accommodation regarding the changes, if any, to the foregoing expert deadlines once the Court resolves the privilege issues raised by the Joint Discovery Statement. The parties would then submit their proposed changes to the Court for approval.
12. The parties do not currently believe that the postponement of the eight depositions will require adjustment in any deadlines that directly involve the Court, such as the May 11, 2012 non-dispositive motion deadline or the November 6, 2012 trial date. But through this stipulation, the parties do not intend to prejudice their right ...