LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
Mar. 30, 2013
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 15 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS In November 2010, two former employees of Spectra-Physics, Linda Pope and Yvette Flores, together with their children, Tia Pope Hudson and Mark Flores, filed a complaint against Spectra-Physics and the Company in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, California. In the action, the plaintiffs allege that between 1975 and 1985 they and their unborn children were exposed to toxic chemicals during their work at Spectra-Physics, and that Spectra-Physics failed to warn them about dangers associated with the chemicals and failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect them from the chemicals, resulting in injuries to them and their unborn children. In November 2012, the Company reached an agreement with Linda Pope and Tia Pope Hudson to settle all claims related to their portion of the suit. The amount of such settlement was immaterial. In December 2012, the court denied the Company’s motions for summary judgment of Yvette and Mark Flores’ claims based on the statute of limitations applicable to such claims. The Company subsequently filed motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims based on additional grounds, and the plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary adjudication of certain of the Company’s affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims, which motions are scheduled to be heard in June 2013. Trial is currently set to commence in July 2013. Yvette and Mark Flores are seeking an aggregate of $20.5 million in general and special damages, as well as punitive damages for each of them to be established by the trier of fact. The Company disputes that the plaintiffs are entitled to any damages, and it continues to believe that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend its position. Further, discovery in the action is ongoing, and the motions for summary judgment or adjudication filed by the Company and the plaintiffs are pending. Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to provide an estimate of the potential exposure or the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome in this action.

NOTE 15 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In November 2010, two former employees of Spectra-Physics, Linda Pope and Yvette Flores, together with their children, Tia Pope Hudson and Mark Flores, filed a complaint against Spectra-Physics and the Company in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, California. In the action, the plaintiffs allege that between 1975 and 1985 they and their unborn children were exposed to toxic chemicals during their work at Spectra-Physics, and that Spectra-Physics failed to warn them about dangers associated with the chemicals and failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect them from the chemicals, resulting in injuries to them and their unborn children.

In November 2012, the Company reached an agreement with Linda Pope and Tia Pope Hudson to settle all claims related to their portion of the suit. The amount of such settlement was immaterial. In December 2012, the court denied the Company’s motions for summary judgment of Yvette and Mark Flores’ claims based on the statute of limitations applicable to such claims. The Company subsequently filed motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims based on additional grounds, and the plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary adjudication of certain of the Company’s affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims, which motions are scheduled to be heard in June 2013. Trial is currently set to commence in July 2013.

Yvette and Mark Flores are seeking an aggregate of $20.5 million in general and special damages, as well as punitive damages for each of them to be established by the trier of fact. The Company disputes that the plaintiffs are entitled to any damages, and it continues to believe that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend its position. Further, discovery in the action is ongoing, and the motions for summary judgment or adjudication filed by the Company and the plaintiffs are pending. Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to provide an estimate of the potential exposure or the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome in this action.