Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division

May 30, 2018


          SELENDY & GAY, PLLC Faith E. Gay (admitted pro hac vice) Lena Konanova (admitted pro hac vice) Joy Odom (admitted pro hac vice) Ronald J. Krock (admitted pro hac vice) and ROUNTREE & LEITMAN LLC Hal J. Leitman Counsel for Plaintiff Whitesell Corporation

          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP Michael P. Kenny (admitted pro hac vice) Kyle G.A. Wallace Elizabeth Helmer (admitted pro hac vice) Amanda M. Waide (admitted pro hac vice) Jamie S. George (admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP R. Perry Sentell, III Joseph H. Huff Laurel Payne Landon Enterprise Mill and James M. Brogan (admitted pro hac vice) Matthew A. Goldberg (admitted pro hac vice) Brian J. Boyle (admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for Defendants Husqvarna AB and Husqvarna Outdoor Products, Inc.



         On May 23, 2018, this Court granted Defendants' request I to reschedule certain depositions in a telephone conference. Based upon this change to the schedule, the parties have submitted a proposed Seventh Revised Joint Discovery Plan. The parties represent that they have agreed to all proposed terms. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Seventh Revised Joint Discovery Plan, attached hereto, is APPROVED.


         Plaintiff and Defendants hereby jointly agree to the following Seventh Revised Joint Discovery Plan. In agreeing to this Revised Joint Discovery Plan, the Parties do not waive any position they have asserted or may assert concerning any issue presently or formerly in this litigation.

         I. Introduction

         A. Discovery will be conducted in four stages.

         B. Discovery will be limited to parts identified in the remainder of this Paragraph (I)(B), including its sub-paragraphs, subject to all reservations of discovery rights set forth within this Joint Discovery Plan. Plaintiff recognizes the effect that the Court's Summary Judgment decision of October 14, 2008, its decision of February 17, 2010 not to reconsider the foregoing decision, and its Order dated October 13, 2010 have on the scope of Plaintiff s claims in this case until such time, if ever, as these decisions are reversed or modified on appeal. Without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to seek appellate review of these decisions and others made by the District Court, Plaintiff hereby limits the scope of parts Plaintiff contends Defendants were obligated to purchase exclusively from Plaintiff to the following: (i) the Brunner Parts as such are identified by the Court in its October 14, 2008 Order and the Matrix Parts, (ii) the Other Included Parts, (iii) the Non-Transition Parts In Suit, and (iv) the Padilla Parts, all as defined and more particularly described below in Sub-Paragraphs (I)(B)(1-5).

1. The parts purchased by the Defendants from Brunner Manufacturing (the "Brunner Parts");
2. The parts purchased by the Defendants from Matrix (formerly known as SMC) (the "Matrix Parts");
3. To the extent that they were supplied by Plaintiff to Defendants through the Parties' course of performance (as described in the Court's previous Orders) the parts from Martin Industrial Supply, Northern Wire, QSN, Bamal Fastener, Brico, Tesa Tape, and Henkel (collectively, the "Other Included Parts");
4. The Non-Transition Parts In Suit previously identified in the Court's Orders dated March 25, 2010, which have also been the subject of previous referrals to a Special Master but only those which have been purchased from the suppliers listed in Paragraph (I)(B)(3) above (the "Non-Transition Parts In Suit"); and
5. The parts, set forth in the Alberto Padilla letter dated December 12, 2005 (or as amended after such date) which the Court determines to be in any of the enforceable part categories described in its October 14, 2008 Order (the "Padilla Parts").
6. The parts described in Sub-Paragraphs (I)(B)(1-5) above are sometimes collectively referred to as the "Parts In Suit."

         C. The Parties recognize that Party and non-Party depositions will be necessary after completion of the Second Stage of discovery. The Parties reserve their rights to move the Court for permission to take depositions during the First Stage of discovery if they determine it to be necessary.

         D. Plaintiff believes that the final duration term date with respect to any of the parts described in Paragraph (I)(B)(l-5) above is or may be after November 1, 2008 and, accordingly, the Parties reserve the right, in the Second Stage of discovery, to seek discovery as to information for ...

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.