Opinion
Case No. CV 10-3208 PJH
10-25-2011
ELLIOT EISENBERG, Plaintiff, v. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.
SEYFARTHSHAWLLP Kari Erickson Levine Cody D. Knight Attorneys for Defendants KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. and KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN Wendy M. Lazerson Christine de Bretteville Attorneys for Defendant THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. ROGERS, ESQ. William J. Rogers, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff DR. ELLIOT EISENBERG
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Kari Erickson Levine (SBN 146101)
Cody D. Knight (SBN 257627)
Attorneys for Defendants
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN
Wendy M. Lazerson (SNB 97285)
Attorney for Defendan
THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
WILLIAM J. ROGERS, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
ELLIOT EISENBERG
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
EXTENSION OF DATES FOR EXPERT
DISCLOSURES AND EXPERT
DISCOVERY
Trial Date: February 27, 2012
Pursuant to Northern District Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2, Plaintiff Dr. Elliot Eisenberg and Defendants The Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, by and through their attorneys of record, have met and conferred regarding an extension of the date for expert disclosures and expert discovery .
Good cause exists for the extensions set forth below for the following reasons:
1. The Court previously continued the date for the hearing on Defendants' summary judgment motions from October 12, 2011 to December 14, 2011 pursuant to stipulation of the parties at the request of Plaintiff's counsel. As a result, a ruling on the summary judgment motions is not anticipated until December 14, 2011 at the earliest.
2. Any expert selections and disclosures will necessarily depend on which claims, if any, remain after the Court's ruling on the summary judgment motion. Without this continuance, the parties risk expending significant time, effort, and cost in identifying and retaining experts that are ultimately unnecessary for trial in advance of the disclosure date.
3. The proposed changes to the discovery and dispositive motion plan do not alter the February 27, 2011 trial date. The parties agree that these changes will not be raised as a basis for any subsequent request for a trial continuance.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES that the following changes shall be
made to the discovery deadline dates:
1. Expert Witness Disclosures: December 30, 2011
2. Deposition of Experts: February 10, 2012 The above changes to the parties' discovery plan do not alter the February 27, 2012 trial date and the parties agree that these changes will not be raised as a basis for any subsequent request for a trial continuance.
SEYFARTHSHAWLLP
Kari Erickson Levine
Cody D. Knight
Attorneys for Defendants
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.
and KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN
Wendy M. Lazerson
Christine de Bretteville
Attorneys for Defendant
THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. ROGERS, ESQ.
William J. Rogers, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
DR. ELLIOT EISENBERG
DECLARATION OF CODY D. KNIGHT IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION TO
CONTINUE EXPERT DISCOVERY & DISCLOSURE DATES
I, Cody D. Knight, declare:
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California, and I am a managing associate with the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP, counsel for KFH and KFHP. I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify to the facts set forth herein.
2. No previous continuance of the expert witness disclosure or expert witness cutoff dates in this case have been requested. At request of Plaintiff's counsel, the parties previously stipulated, and the Court ordered, a continuance of the opposition and reply briefing schedule and the hearing date on Defendants' motions for summary judgment from October 12, 2011 to December 14, 2011.
3. As a result of the continuance of the summary judgment hearing date, a ruling on the summary judgment motions is not anticipated until December 14, 2011 at the earliest. Any expert selections and disclosures will necessarily depend on which claims, if any, remain after the Court's ruling on the summary judgment motion. Without this continuance, the parties risk expending significant time, effort, and cost in identifying and retaining experts that are ultimately unnecessary for trial in advance of the disclosure date.
4. The granting of this requested continuance of the expert disclosure and discovery deadlines is not anticipated to have any other effect on the overall scheduling of the case. The trial date can be maintained for February 27, 2012 as currently scheduled.
I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on October 18, 2011 at San Francisco, California.
Cody D. Knight
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The Stipulation of the parties adopting changes to the expert disclosure cutoff and expert deposition cutoff is hereby accepted by the Court and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton