IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
| Civil Action No. 99-005 (MMS)
JOINT DISCOVERY REPORT
Pursuant to the Court's January 25, 1999 Order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), and D. Del. LR 16.2,
counsel for plaintiff United States of America and counsel for defendant Dentsply International, Inc.
("Dentsply") met on February 2, 1999 to discuss and develop a discovery plan and order.
The parties have been able to agree on the items identified in Section A of this Report and
embodied in the attached Stipulated Discovery Plan and Order.
The parties also wish to advise the Court that discovery in this matter will involve
confidential information of Dentsply and third parties. The parties are attempting to develop a
stipulated Protective Order that they would request the Court to enter pursuant to Rule 26(c)(7).
Additionally, pursuant to D. Del. LR 16.2, the parties certify that they have conferred to discuss
As set forth in Part B of this Report, the parties have reached agreement on a number of
deadlines. The parties, however, have been unable to reach an agreement regarding deadlines for
expert disclosures, case dispositive motions, and exchange of witness lists. Section B sets forth the
parties' respective positions on these deadlines.
- Stipulated Terms
The parties stipulate and agree to the following:
- The parties' disclosure of individuals pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) shall
not constitute a waiver of work product.
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C) and (D) are inapplicable in the context of this case, and
neither party has disclosures to make under those rules.
- Discovery is needed concerning the allegations of the Complaint that have not been
admitted. Except to the extent identified in the schedule proposed in Section B of
this Report, the parties currently see no reason to conduct discovery in phases, or to
limit it to, or focus on, particular issues.
- Depositions shall be scheduled at times reasonably convenient to the parties and
comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Delaware District Court
Local Rules. The parties propose no limitations on discovery in addition to any
already contained in the Federal Rules and the Local Rules.
- Each party shall deliver to the other party "Bates-stamped" copies of all documents
produced to one party by any non-party in response to a Rule 45 subpoena, unless the
producing non-party produces to all parties simultaneously. Each party bears the
costs of their set of copies; however, photocopying costs charged to another party
shall not exceed 15 cents per page. Each party shall deliver "Bates-stamped" copies
totaling fewer than 1,000 pages within 5 business days after receiving the production,
or within 10 business days for productions in excess of 1,000 pages.
- Witness lists shall include individuals whom the parties expected to call live at the
trial of this case, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A). Each party shall be
permitted to add witnesses not listed on its witness list, provided that the other party
has a reasonable opportunity to obtain documents relating to each additional witness
and depose each such witness prior to the close of discovery. The schedule set forth
in Section B of this Report contains the parties' conflicting positions on the deadline
for exchange of witness lists. The foregoing shall not limit the parties' right to
designate testimony from depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B).
- No motions shall be filed with the Court unless a statement is filed with the Court
detailing efforts made to achieve agreement on the matters set forth in the motion.
- All case dispositive motions accompanied by an opening brief and affidavit and a
brief and affidavit schedule shall be served and filed no later than the deadline
established by the Court. The schedule set forth in Section B of this Report contains
the parties' conflicting positions on the deadline for such motions. Failure to file said
motions by the deadline shall be considered a waiver of all such motions. An order
calling for a pretrial conference will issue in the absence of the timely filing of any
- The parties stipulate and agree that the Court should enter the attached, Stipulated
Discovery Plan and Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
- Proposed Discovery Schedule
The schedule below sets forth the parties' respective positions on deadlines for discovery and
conduct of this case. Except as modified by their proposed schedules, the parties propose no changes
to deadlines set forth in the Federal Rules of Procedure and Delaware District Court Local Rules.
The parties have included the deadlines on which they agree in their proposed, Stipulated Discovery
Plan and Order. Under the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Order, neither party waives any right to
seek appropriate protective orders in response to discovery sought by the other party.
The proposed, Stipulated Discovery Plan and Order, if entered by the Court, would modify
the Court's January 25, 1999 Order by changing the deadlines for completion of discovery and filing
of case dispositive motions. In the January 25, 1999 Order, the Court specified that the September
7, 1999 discovery deadline of that Order could not "be changed by counsel unless first clearing the
same with the Court." Additionally, the Court reminded counsel that "under the District Plan
Pursuant to the Civil Justice Reform Act this case should be brought to trial within 12 months of the
filing of the date of the complaint."
The parties respectfully submit that this case may warrant the longer discovery period set
forth in the Stipulated Discovery Plan and Order, and a trial date beyond the twelve-month period
contemplated by the District Plan. At the conference between counsel on February 2, 1999, the
United States advised Dentsply that the United States estimated that it would identify approximately
180 individuals pursuant to the initial disclosures called for by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).(1) The United
States contends that the interviews it conducted with these individuals during its pre-complaint
investigation are work product and protected from disclosure. Dentsply anticipates that it will need
to depose a significant portion of those individuals, all of whom are third parties, as well as other
persons, and that it cannot complete by September 7, 1999 the discovery necessary to defend and
rebut the extensive pre-complaint investigative record that the United States has built during the past
three years. Although the United States was prepared to develop a discovery plan meeting the
September 7, 1999 deadline, it does not oppose Dentsply's request for a longer period of time to
complete fact and expert discovery and to file dispositive motions.
The Stipulated Discovery Plan and Order would allow Dentsply the additional time it
requests and control other aspects of discovery. The Stipulated Discovery Plan and Order would
establish November 15, 1999 as the deadline for completion of fact discovery. The parties have not,
however, reached agreement as to the deadlines for exchange of witness lists, expert disclosures and
case dispositive motions. The following schedule sets forth their areas of agreement and their
respective positions on appropriate deadlines for expert witness disclosures, case dispositive
motions, and the exchange of witness lists:
|Rule 26(a)(2) witness lists
||No change from Rule (30 days
||30 days after ruling on case dispositive motions
|Rebuttal Expert Reports
||60 days after ruling on case dispositive motions
||90 days after ruling on case dispositive motions
|Case Dispositive Motions
|Opposition to Case
The parties are prepared to submit a proposed, supplemental order embodying
the Court's decision on the deadlines on which they have not reached
February 17, 1999
| FOR PLAINTIFF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
Richard G. Andrews
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Judith M. Kinney
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
1201 Market Street, Suite 1100
Wilmington, DE 19801
Delaware Bar No. 3643
Mark J. Botti
William E. Berlin
Michael S. Spector
Michael D. Farber
Health Care Task Force
U.S. Department of Justice
325 7th Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20530
FOR DEFENDANT DENTSPLY:
James P. Hughes, Jr.(No. 3102)
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
11th Fl., Rodney Square North
P.O. Box 391
Wilmington, DE 19899-0391
Margaret M. Zwisler
Richard A. Ripley
Kelly A. Clement
Eric J. McCarthy
HOWREY & SIMON
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
1. The United States now believes that it will identify