JULIET GRIFFIN, Magistrate Judge
Counsel for the parties called the Court on May 28, 2010, to address the defendants' failure to produce some of the documents requested by the plaintiffs in their requests for production served on November 19, 2009. However, counsel had conferred prior to the conference call and had determined that there was some possibility that the dispute could be resolved if the defendants were willing to enter into a stipulation relating to infringement. In addition, defendants' counsel agreed to produce invoices whether or not a stipulation could be reached. Defendants' counsel represented that he would be able to determine by June 1, 2010, if a stipulation could be reached. Therefore, a telephone conference call with the Court was scheduled on Tuesday, June 1, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. However, prior to the scheduled conference call, plaintiffs' counsel called the office of the undersigned to advise that the defendants had agreed to enter into the stipulation and the conference call was unnecessary. As a result, the June 1, 2010, conference call was cancelled.
Other matters addressed on May 28, 2010, are as follows:
1. The parties believe that they will be able to agree to participate in private mediation.
2. The provision in the order entered November 17, 2009 (Docket Entry No. 18) requiring that "initial written discovery" be served in sufficient time so that responses will be in hand by July 16, 2010, was clarified. The parties are not precluded from serving additional written discovery thereafter, as long as such written discovery is served in sufficient time so that responses are in hand by September 1, 2010, the deadline for completion of all discovery.
It is so ORDERED.