UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[long uoip]

Issue The Parties’ Positions
Entry of a schedule Plaintiff believes entry of a schedule is appropriate at this time, and
that, particularly given Mr. Hennenhoefer’s medical condition, it is
urgent that the parties move quickly.
Defendants agree that the case should move forward, but do not
believe a schedule can issue in advance of the Court’s ruling on the
stockholders’ motions to intervene (D.I. 34, 100). While Defendants
continue to believe the motions should be denied, their grant would
require a different schedule because additional pleadings and
discovery would occur, and additional issues would be before the
Court.
Bifurcation Plaintiff asks that the schedule be bifurcated, with discovery taken
prior to August 26, 2022 limited to discovery “relating to the validity
of the Advisory Services Agreement” (the “ASA”) in order to facilitate
what Plaintiff anticipates will be an early summary judgment motion
on that topic.
Defendants oppose bifurcating or limiting discovery. Both ChanBond
and Leane Defendants have already produced all documents they
have relating to this issue, having conducted extensive discovery
regarding the ASA in the Texas arbitration. CBV has been in
possession of those documents since late March. There is no reason
to limit Defendants’ discovery of CBV, or of each other.
Moreover, Defendants oppose CBV’s proposal that Defendants’
principals – Ms. Leane and Mr. Carter – be required to travel to
Delaware for two separate depositions (once on the validity of the
ASA, and a second time on whatever other issues CBV is interested in
inquiring of them about). There is no reason CBV cannot take
fulsome depositions on all topics, having received Defendants’
extensive document productions. Similarly, there is no reason to
require Defendants to limit their questioning of Mr. Hennenhoefer,
Mr. Stine, and Mr. Snyder to issues relating to the ASA, and then
depose them a second time on other issues (particularly given CBV’s
representation that Mr. Hennenhoefer will be unavailable for a year
or longer).
Defendants have no objection to CBV making an early summary
judgment motion regarding the ASA, while discovery is ongoing as to
other matters. But there is no need to bifurcate discovery in order to
enable it
Limits on Discovery Devices in
the Event of Bifurcation
Plaintiff proposes that if discovery is bifurcated, each party be
limited to five interrogatories, five requests for admission, and 10
___________________________________

Issue The Parties’ Positions
hours of depositions in the ASA phase of the case, and 20
interrogatories and 24 hours of post-ASA depositions .
Defendants propose 35 hours of total deposition time – which is the
limit that all parties agreed to when they submitted a proposed
schedule for the Court’s consideration on March 16, 2022 (D.I. 24) –
and agree to overall limits of 20 interrogatories and requests for
admission. But if the Court bifurcates discovery, it should not
artificially limit how Defendants elect to allocate their deposition
time, interrogatories, and requests for admission. For instance,
Leane Defendants would expect to depose each of CBV’s three
principals (Mr. Hennenhoefer, Mr. Stine, and Mr. Snyder) with
respect to issues relating to the ASA, and may wish to devote more
than 10 total hours to such depositions. And Defendants may wish to
serve more than five total interrogatories and requests for admission
on each other and CBV in connection with the ASA. There is no
reason for the Court to set artificial limits on how the parties allocate
their discovery resources by issue, and CBV’s attempt to restrict
Defendants’ ability to conduct discovery on the purported ASA issue
is inappropriate and unjustified.
Discovery Cut-off Plaintiff proposes that all discovery in the case be complete on or
before January 20, 2023.
Defendants propose a discovery cutoff of November 21, 2022. Given
that all defendants have already substantially completed their
document production, and that Plaintiff has had nearly a year to
collect its documents in anticipation of discovery requests (which
Leane Defendants intend to serve promptly upon entry of a
scheduling order) there is no reason for a discovery period longer
than 3-4 months. The remaining dates proposed by CBV (for
identification of experts, expert discovery, dispositive motions, and
trial) should be adjusted accordingly
______________________________________

Issue The Parties’ Positions
Expert Discovery Period Plaintiff proposes that opening expert reports be due 20 days after
the completion of discovery, rebuttal reports 30 days thereafter, and
reply reports 21 days from the service of rebuttal reports. Plaintiff
further proposes that expert discovery be completed 60 days after
service of the reply reports.
Defendants propose that the parties retain the schedule they
already agreed to in the proposed schedule submitted on March 16,
2022 (D.I. 24): Opening reports due 30 days after the close of fact
discovery; rebuttal reports due 30 days thereafter; reply reports due
14 days thereafter, and expert discovery complete by 45 days after
service of reply reports.
Case Dispositive Motions Plaintiff proposes that case dispositive motions not directed to the
ASA be due 60 days after the completion of expert discovery.
Defendants propose that the parties retain the schedule they
already agreed to in the proposed schedule submitted on March 16,
2022 (D.I. 24): case dispositive motions to be filed 30 days after the
close of fact discovery.
Trial Plaintiff proposes trial be scheduled in November 2023.
Defendants propose trial be scheduled in May 2023.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76834/gov.uscourts.ded.76834.136.1_1.pdf