IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ROTOLIGHT LIMITED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C.A. No. 22-928 (MN) (JLH) VIDENDUM PLC and VIDENDUM ) PRODUCT SOLUTIONS, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

At Wilmington, this 2nd day of August 2023; WHEREAS, on June 6, 2023, Magistrate Judge Hall held oral argument on Defendant Videndum PLC’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Under DRCP 12(b)(2) (D.I. 30) and then read her ruling from the Bench (see 6/6/2023 Minute Entry; see also D.I. 44 (Transcript from the 6/62023 oral argument)); WHEREAS, also on June 6, 2023, Judge Hall issued a Report and Recommendation and Order memorializing her recommendation of denying Defendant’s motion without prejudice to refile after jurisdictional discovery has occurred and ordering that Rotolight could take jurisdictional discovery (D.I. 43) (“the Report”); WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, Videndum PLC filed Objections to Report and Recommendation Regarding Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and for Jurisdictional Discovery (D.I. 45) and on July 3, 2023 Plaintiff filed a response thereto (D.I. 47); and WHEREAS, the Court having reviewed the transcript of the Oral Argument and the Report (D.I. 43, 44), the objections (D.I. 45) and the response thereto (D.I. 47), and having considered de novo the objected-to portions of the Report, the relevant portions of the underlying motion and supporting documentation as well as the response and reply thereto (D.I. 30, 31, 33 & 37); and having also afforded reasoned consideration to any unobjected-to portions of the Report (EEOC v. City of Long Branch,

(3d Cir. 2017)), agrees that for the reasons stated on the record by Judge Hall, jurisdictional discovery is appropriate.! THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the Report and Recommendation and Order (D.I. 43) is ADOPTED. Videndum PLC’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint Under DRCP 12(b)(2) (D.I. 30) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew after jurisdictional discovery has occurred. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rotolight Limited may take jurisdictional discovery, the scope and limits of which shall be determined by Judge Hall.”

The ‘Honorable Maryellen Noreika United States District Judge

The Court does not address the scope of jurisdictional discovery as that issue was not decided in the Report. 2 On June 6, 2023, this Court issued an Oral Order referring the case to Judge Hall “to hear and resolve all pre-trial matters up to and including expert discovery matters (but not including summary judgment motions, Daubert motions, pre-trial motions in limine or the pre-trial conference), subject to

(b) and any further Order of the Court.” (D.I. 42). 3 In the parties’ Joint Proposed Scheduling Order (D.I. 48-1), they submitted differing proposals for the scope and limits of the jurisdictional discovery and for the renewed motion to dismiss briefing. Judge Hall has set a telephonic scheduling conference for August 8, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. (D.I. 50).