Opinion
2:20-cv-01082-JLR
01-10-2022
STEVEN VANCE and TIM JANECYK, for themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Nicholas R. Lange, Gary Lynch, ISBA #56887 (pro hac vice) Katrina Carroll, ISBA #6291405 (pro hac vice), Nicholas R. Lange, ISBA #6318106 (pro hac vice). LOEVY & LOEVY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, David B. Owens, WSBA #52856, Scott Drury, ISBA #6255867 (pro hac vice) Mike Kanovitz, ISBA #6275233 (pro hac vice). DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation, Stephen M. Rummage, WSBA #11168. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation, Elizabeth B. Herrington, ISBA #6244547 (pro hac vice), Alex Berger, ISBA #6320296 (pro hac vice).
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Nicholas R. Lange, Gary Lynch, ISBA #56887 (pro hac vice) Katrina Carroll, ISBA #6291405 (pro hac vice), Nicholas R. Lange, ISBA #6318106 (pro hac vice).
LOEVY & LOEVY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, David B. Owens, WSBA #52856, Scott Drury, ISBA #6255867 (pro hac vice) Mike Kanovitz, ISBA #6275233 (pro hac vice).
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation, Stephen M. Rummage, WSBA #11168.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation, Elizabeth B. Herrington, ISBA #6244547 (pro hac vice), Alex Berger, ISBA #6320296 (pro hac vice).
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER
Honorable James L. Robart, United States District Judge.
The parties, by and through their counsel, stipulate and agree as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk and Defendant Microsoft Corporation, by their attorneys, submit this Stipulation to modify the Scheduling Order in this case (Dkt. 69) to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in support of their class certification motion (“Plaintiffs' Reply”) from January 13, 2022 until January 18, 2022.
2. On August 31, 2021, the Court entered a modified scheduling order that requires Plaintiffs to file Plaintiffs' Reply on January 13, 2022. Dkt. 69.
3. In connection with Microsoft's response to Plaintiffs' class certification motion, it submitted the declaration of its expert witness, Margaret Daley. Dkt. 83.
4. The parties have reached agreement that Daley will be deposed on January 11, 2022. Because of the proximity of Daley's deposition to the current date for Plaintiffs' Reply, the parties have agreed to extend the date for Plaintiffs' Reply to January 18, 2022.
5. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4) provides that “a schedule may be modified only for good cause shown and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). LCR 16(b) further provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” LCR 16(b).
6. The parties agree that good cause justifies this modification of the scheduling order. Plaintiffs contend the filing of Plaintiffs' Reply on January 13, 2022, as originally scheduled, would impede Plaintiffs' ability to incorporate Daley's testimony into the reply and to otherwise respond to Microsoft's assertions based on Daley's opinions. Further, because the Court has deferred ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification until after it has decided Microsoft's Motion for Summary Judgment (see Dkt 98), there will be no prejudice from this short extension to file Plaintiffs' Reply.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.