Opinion
2:21-CV-00582-TLN-CKD
08-05-2021
HENRY'S BULLFROG BEES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUNLAND TRADING, INC., et al., Defendants.
WHITE & CASE LLP Bryan A. Merryman, Catherine S. Simonsen Attorneys for Defendant Sunland Trading, Inc. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE, LLP Thomas N. McCormick, Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Jeffrey A. Miller, Kenneth J. Rubin Attorneys for Defendant Dutch Gold Honey, Inc. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP John S. Poulos, Matthew D. Taggart Attorneys for Defendant Barkman Honey, LLC WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP Michael P. McCloskey, David J. Aveni Attorneys for Defendant True Source Honey, LLC HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC Robert L. Rosenthal, Jon R. Steiger, Patrick M. McCarthy Attorneys for Defendant NSF International BOUTIN JONES INC. Robert D. Swanson SPENCER FANE LLP Donald G. Heeman, Jessica J. Nelson Attorneys for Defendant Lamex Foods, Inc. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Leo Caseria Attorneys for Defendant Export Packers Company Limited, d/b/a Odem International MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP Gillian L. Wade, Sara D. Avila, Marc A. Castaneda REESE LLP Michael R. Reese, Carlos F. Ramirez, George V. Granade FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP Jack Fitzgerald, Trevor M Flynn, Melanie Persinger Attorneys for Plaintiffs
WHITE & CASE LLP Bryan A. Merryman, Catherine S. Simonsen Attorneys for Defendant Sunland Trading, Inc.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE, LLP Thomas N. McCormick, Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Jeffrey A. Miller, Kenneth J. Rubin Attorneys for Defendant Dutch Gold Honey, Inc.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP John S. Poulos, Matthew D. Taggart Attorneys for Defendant Barkman Honey, LLC
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP Michael P. McCloskey, David J. Aveni Attorneys for Defendant True Source Honey, LLC
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC Robert L. Rosenthal, Jon R. Steiger, Patrick M. McCarthy Attorneys for Defendant NSF International
BOUTIN JONES INC. Robert D. Swanson SPENCER FANE LLP Donald G. Heeman, Jessica J. Nelson Attorneys for Defendant Lamex Foods, Inc.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Leo Caseria Attorneys for Defendant Export Packers Company Limited, d/b/a Odem International
MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP Gillian L. Wade, Sara D. Avila, Marc A. Castaneda REESE LLP Michael R. Reese, Carlos F. Ramirez, George V. Granade FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP Jack Fitzgerald, Trevor M Flynn, Melanie Persinger Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY STAY AND DEADLINES
TROY L. NUNLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs Henry's Bullfrog Bees; Golden Prairie Honey Farms Corporation, d/b/a Valor Honey; and Kelvin Adee (together, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Sunland Trading, Inc.; Lamex Foods, Inc.; Export Packers Company Limited, d/b/a Odem International (named in the Amended Complaint as “Odem International Inc.”); Barkman Honey, LLC; Dutch Gold Honey, Inc.; True Source Honey LLC; and NSF International (together, “Defendants”), hereby agree and stipulate that good cause exists for the following:
WHEREAS, on March 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint. ECF No. 1.
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2021, the Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order requiring the parties to confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) within 60 days of service of the complaint and to complete discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, no later than 240 days from the date upon which the last answer may be filed with the Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 3.
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2021, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to extend Plaintiffs' time to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 35.
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Modify the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, resetting the Rule 26(f) conference deadline to August 27, 2021, 60 days after the filing of Plaintiffs' amended complaint. ECF No. 42.
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”). ECF No. 43.
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to extend Defendants' deadline to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint to August 16, 2021, and Plaintiffs' deadline to file opposition(s) to any motion(s) to dismiss the Amended Complaint to 45 days from the filing of the motion(s) to dismiss. ECF No. 46.
WHEREAS, the parties agree, in order to conserve judicial and party resources pending completion of the briefing of Defendants' forthcoming motions to dismiss, to stay discovery and extend certain deadlines applicable to discovery in this case as follows:
1. All discovery in this case shall be stayed until 60 days following the filing of the last reply filed in support of any defendant(s)' motion(s) to dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Discovery Stay Period”);
2. The deadline for the parties to confer as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) shall be extended to the earlier of (i) 60 days following the filing of the last reply filed in support of any defendant's motion(s) to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and (ii) 30 days following the last Court order ruling on all motions to dismiss (to the extent any claims remain following an order);
3. The deadline to complete all discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be extended to 18 months from the date upon which the last answer may be filed with the Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
4. This Stipulation is not, and may not be construed as, a waiver by Plaintiffs of their right to move the Court for permission to serve discovery necessary to oppose any motion(s) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The parties agree that no such personal jurisdiction-related discovery (or other discovery) shall take place during the Discovery Stay Period unless and until the Court grants any such motion; and
5. This Stipulation is not, and may not be construed as, a waiver by Defendants of their right to move to continue the stay or limit discovery following the conclusion of the Discovery Stay Period.
WHEREAS, this Stipulation will not impact any other case deadlines.
WHEREAS, the parties agree that entering into this stipulation shall not constitute a waiver of (a) any jurisdictional defenses that may be available; (b) any affirmative defenses under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any defense listed in Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or otherwise; or (c) any other statutory or common law defenses that may be available to Defendants. Defendants expressly reserve their rights to raise any such defenses and any other defense.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and subject to the Court's approval, as follows:
1. All discovery in this case shall be stayed until 60 days following the filing of the last reply filed in support of any defendant(s)' motion(s) to dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Discovery Stay Period”);
2. The deadline for the parties to confer as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) shall be extended to the earlier of (i) 60 days following the filing of the last reply filed in support of any defendant's motion(s) to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and (ii) 30 days following the last Court order ruling on all motions to dismiss (to the extent any claims remain following an order);
3. The deadline to complete all discovery, with the exception of expert discovery, shall be extended to 18 months from the date upon which the last answer may be filed with the Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. This Stipulation is not, and may not be construed as, a waiver by Plaintiffs of their right to move the Court for permission to serve discovery necessary to oppose any motion(s) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The parties agree that no such personal jurisdiction-related discovery (or other discovery) shall take place during the Discovery Stay Period unless and until the Court grants any such motion;
5. This Stipulation is not, and may not be construed as, a waiver by Defendants of their right to move to continue the stay or limit discovery following the conclusion of the Discovery Stay Period; and
6. The discovery deadlines set forth above, rather than the deadlines for discovery set forth in the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order, shall govern.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.