Paragon Component Systems, LLC v. Qualtim, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PARAGON COMPONENT SYSTEMS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALTIM, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-170-wmc
The court held a telephonic hearing on March 25, 2026. Plaintiff was represented by
Attorneys James T. Williams and Stephen E. Kabakoff. Defendant Kirk H. Grundahl
appeared, representing himself. All other defendants were represented by Attorney Scott
George Salemi. For the reasons discussed, the court made the following rulings:
The court addressed lingering issues reported in the parties’ joint status report.
Dkt. 140. Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the entire Slack channel #drj-paragon-
engineering-discussions as soon as practicable. If not before April 1, 2026, the parties must
meet and confer to discuss logistics for production. Plaintiff advised that the parties’ dispute
concerning Interrogatory No. 5 is moot. Finally, the parties are ORDERED to revise the
protective order in this case per the court’s rulings in Case No. 25-cv-75-wmc and submit a
single amended protective order in both cases.
The court addressed defendants’ motion to compel source code. Dkt. 142. The motion
is largely GRANTED. The following deadlines are SET/RESET:
• March 27, 2026 – The parties must meet and confer on what internal
documentation, files, or applications plaintiff keeps in the ordinary course of
business that memorialize version control of the software at issue and make plans
Case: 3:25-cv-00170-wmc Document #: 160 Filed: 03/25/26 Page 1 of 3

2
for the production of sufficient information for defendants’ expert to identify
versions of the source code at issue for inspection. Defendants must identify their
source code expert by this date.
• April 1, 2026 – Plaintiff must disclose the identified version control information.
• April 8, 2026 – Defendants must identify up to four versions of the source code at
issue for inspection.
• April 17, 2026 – Any inspection of the source code must be complete.
• 28 days after inspection – Proponent expert reports concerning source code due.
• 28 days later – Respondent expert reports concerning source code due.
• June 12, 2026 – Dispositive motions due. Briefing will follow a 21 / 10 day briefing
schedule.
All other deadlines remain in place. To the extent the parties agreed to extend the
original deadlines for expert disclosures, they should promptly meet and confer to confirm or
modify those deadlines in light of these dates. In particular, they should confirm disclosure
deadlines for both liability and damages experts other than source code experts.
The court addressed plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions. Dkt. 145. The issues
were largely mooted by the schedule set forth above, so the motion is DENIED as moot. The
parties are ORDERED to meet and confer by April 1, 2026, to finalize a schedule for all
depositions requested to-date, taking into account the June 12 dispositive motion deadline.
Based on these rulings, defendants’ motion for extension of time, Dkt. 158, is DENIED
as moot.
The parties bear their own costs on these motions.
Case: 3:25-cv-00170-wmc Document #: 160 Filed: 03/25/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Entered 25th day of March, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
ANITA MARIE BOOR
Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00170-wmc Document #: 160 Filed: 03/25/26 Page 3 of 3