Opinion
Mark S. Newman, Esq., SBN 107012, Manish Parikh, Esq., SBN 244205, BORTON PETRINI, LLP, Sacramento, California, Rancho Cordova, California, Attorneys for Defendant Cashman Equipment Company.
PAGLIERO & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Corporation, JAMES R. PAGLIERO, Attorneys for defendant Miratech Corporation.
KEVIN BUSH, Attorneys for plaintiff American Home Assurance Company.
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST FOR ORDER AMENDING PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, defendant CASHMAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY and defendant MIRATECH CORPORATION, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court enter a stipulated order amending the pre-trial scheduling order, as follows.
1. The trial date in this matter is February 25, 2014. That is the second trial date in this matter and was changed previously due to change of plaintiff's counsel and need for extensive discovery due to the complicated nature of the case involving damages of $15 million. The parties request that the trial date and all pre-trial dates be extended approximately four to five months to allow the parties additional time to conduct mediation and settlement discussions, including expert discovery in this complicated, multi-million dollar case.
2. Since the time of the initial status conference the parties were diligently involved in conducting extensive written discovery. As a result of that discovery, certain persons were identified who the parties intended to depose. Some of these depositions have been completed and it has led parties to discuss settlement much earlier than anticipated. Plaintiff's counsel has recently sent a written demand, which both defendants are considering at the moment. In light of these ongoing settlement discussions all parties intend to reschedule the trial date and other discovery deadlines for another three to four months.
3. Additionally, the disclosure of expert witness and reports is approaching soon on May 31, 2013, and all parties wish not to spend their time and financial resources at this time on their experts but rather use it to settle the matter through negotiations.
4. This is a complicated case involving alleged damages of over $15,000,000 and involving claims and defenses involving negligence, products liability, indemnity and premises liability.
5. The parties jointly submit this stipulation and request to revise the existing pre-trial schedule order for the dual purposes of: (a) allowing the parties the time to resolve the matter amicably through settlement negotiations, and (b) prevent the expenditure by all parties on their experts and use those resources to resolve the matter through settlement.
6. Based on the foregoing, all parties strongly urge the court to extend the current deadlines set out in the pre-trial scheduling order. The parties jointly and unanimously move that the following proposed amended pre-trial scheduling order submitted by all parties be entered by the court.
7. This stipulation is not made for the purposes of delay, but so that the parties have sufficient time to engage in settlement discussions. All parties unanimously agree that a reasonable extension is necessary based on the foregoing.
ITEM CURRENT REVISED DATE DATE Disclosure of Expert 05/31/13 10/31/13 Witnesses and Reports Discovery Completion 08/16/13 01/31/14 Deadline Non-Discovery Motion filing 09/20/13 02/20/14 Deadline Final Pretrial Conference 12/19/13 at 05/12/14 at 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. Trial of Matter 02/25/14 at 07/29/14 at 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED.