
    FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. and Flexiteek International As, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PLASDECK, INC. and Plasteak, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, and Andre Batista, Defendant.
    No. 2009-1501.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    July 15, 2010.
    S. Tracy Long, Santucci, Priore, & Long, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Bruce H. Wilson, Akron, OH, Douglas De Almeida, J. Clark Dixon, Camillo, Snowden & De Almeida, P.A., Fort Laud-erdale, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.
   ON MOTION

ORDER

Plasdeck, Inc. et al. (Plasdeck) move for an extension of time to file their reply brief. Flexiteek Americas, Inc. et al. (Flexiteek) oppose and move (1) to compel settlement discussions and (2) to compel Plasdeck to file the joint appendix. Plas-deck opposes the motions to compel. Flexiteek replies.

On April 2, 2010, the court stated that the due date for Plasdeck’s reply brief should be calculated from the date of service of Flexiteek’s corrected brief. Flexi-teek served its corrected brief on April 15, 2010; however, this brief was rejected. Flexiteek then served a second corrected brief on April 27, 2010. It appears that Plasdeck calculated the due date for its reply brief from the date of service of Flexiteek’s second corrected brief rather than the first corrected brief. Although Plasdeck should have calculated the due date for its reply brief from the date of service of Flexiteek’s first corrected brief, Flexiteek contributed to Plasdeck’s confusion concerning the due date by failing to submit a conforming corrected brief within the time permitted by the court’s April 2 order. Thus, the court grants Plasdeck’s motion for an extension of time and determines that the reply brief and joint appendix are timely.

Flexiteek moves to compel settlement discussions pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 38(a). Although the parties have not complied with the Fed. Cir. R. 33(a)(2) requirement that they submit either a joint statement of compliance or an agreement to dismiss the appeal, it appears that settlement has been discussed and settlement efforts have not been productive. Under these circumstances, the court waives the requirements of Rule 33(a)(2).

Flexiteek states that its motion to compel the filing of the joint appendix is moot because Plasdeck has submitted the appendix.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) Plasdeck’s motion for an extension of time is granted.

(2) The motion to compel settlement discussions is denied.

(3) The motion to compel the filing of the joint appendix is moot.  