Fourth good cause factor from Mr. Hudnell's filing:
"... The fourth good cause factor considers the availability of a continuance to cure any prejudice to the non-moving party. This matter is still 90 days away from its trial date, and VoIP-Pal can commit to serving a new report by June 30, 2024. With an expedited schedule, expert discovery could be completed before trial, which is set for the week of August 19, 2024. While trial could still begin that week as currently scheduled, Mr. Brida would need one small accommodation as the earliest he is able to appear at trial is August 26, 2024, which is the Monday of the following week. If, however, Verizon contends that such a schedule is infeasible, then VoIPPal would of course be agreeable to a reasonable continuance[/color]...."
The point of using a substitute, Mr. Brida, was to address, PRE-EMPTIVELY, Verizon's complaint about Mr. Salk, as VPLM's expert for damages. The first step is whether Judge Albright will accept that VZ's concerns are justified. If it is not justified, Judge Albright may reject VZ's concerns. We proceed with the trial.
Judge Albright was an IP attorney arguing patent cases for plaintiffs over a decade. He is also the Judge that rejected AMZN's venue transfer motion three times. AMZN took an extraordinary step of filing a writ of Mandamus against Albright in the Appeals court. The Appeals court swiftly rejected AMZN's motion with compliments to Judge Albright on his handling of AMZN venue transfer motion. If the judge rejects VZ's complaint, we proceed with the trial in August.
If the judge decides VZ's concerns are justifiable, we go to the next step of using a substitute. Mr. Hudnell has put forth justifications for a continuance for one week from the August trial date. The next available trial date is in Nov, 2024. We'll soon know how the Judge will decide. Too early to worry about unknowns!
About reading Mr. Hudnell's filings:
Reading Mr. Hudnell's filings requires "reading between the lines". In responding to AMZN's motion to stay on the RBR case (partly due to Reexam of RBR patent), Mr Hudnell quoted a statistic of a mean pendency of 25.2 months for reexaminations, perhaps to get the attention of "rocket docket' Judge Albright. But the reexamination certificate was approved in 5-6 months after VPLM response to Office Action.
