Opinion
Case No.3:11-CV-00733-SC
11-29-2011
CHAD EMPEY, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants,
LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
GARY T. LAFAYETTE (State Bar No. 0SS666)
REBECCA K.KIMURA (State Bar No. 220420)
Attorneys for Defendants
ALLIED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY
DONALD T. MCMILLAN (State Bar No. 134366)
GEORGE J. KELLER (State Bar No. 121728)
MCMILLAN & SHUREEN LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHAD EMPEY
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING THE HEARING
AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTION AND DISCOVERY AND
PRETRIAL DEADLINES
Complaint filed: January 20, 2011
Plaintiff CHAD EMPEY ("Plaintiff") and Defendant ALLIED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ("Allied") (collectively, the "Parties") through their respective counsel present the following stipulation and proposed order regarding the hearing and briefing schedule for Defendant's partial summary judgment motion and discovery and pretrial deadlines. This stipulation is based on the following:
The Parties commenced an Early Neutral Evaluation with Thomas H.R. Denver on September 23, 2011, and thereafter engaged in mediation activities with Mr. Denver until November 14, 2011, when the parties were unable to resolve the case at a mediation, As a result, counsel for the Parties met and conferred on November 15, 2011 in the U.S. Courthouse, Oakland, pursuant to the Order of Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. Due to the pending mediation, the court ordered meet and confer was continued to November 15, 2011 from earlier dates. As stated above, since the case did not settle on November 14, 2011, counsel for the Parties met and conferred in an effort to resolve all pending discovery disputes. Some progress was made on November 15, 2011, but the Parties have continued to meet and confer on almost a daily basis thereafter. Magistrate Judge Ryu adjourned the due date of the filing of a joint letter to her regarding certain discovery disputes to November 23, 2011. A joint letter is being filed with Magistrate Ryu on November 23, 2011 for a resolution by her.
Due to the Early Neutral Evaluation (that subsequently transformed into a mediation process), the Parties previously petitioned this Court to modify the pre-trial dates, particularly the briefing schedule pertaining to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Motion") and the hearing date for that motion. This Court issued an Order dated October 31, 2011 granting the Parties1 requests, except this Court selected a hearing date of January 13, 2012 for that Motion.
Due to the mediation and discovery meet and confer processes that the Parties have engaged in in good faith, the Parties respectfully request that this Court further modify the following pretrial deadline dates. These proposed new deadline dates allow the Parties to complete all previously-noticed discovery. In addition, Defendant has scheduled and conducted and/or needs to Conduct and/or continue sessions of depositions previously started, but not completed.
The Parties respectfully request modification of upcoming pretrial discovery and motion dates in order to permit the Parties additional time to pursue and complete discovery in an orderly fashion.
Tins Court modified the briefing schedule on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment such that Plaintiffs Opposition is now due on December 5,20 U, and Defendant's Reply is now due on December 16, 2011. Additional deadline dates ordered by this Court are currently as follows:
1. Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: December 7, 2011
2. Deadline for Expert Disclosure: December 7, 2011
3. Deadline for Disclosing Rebuttal Experts: December 28, 2011
4. Expert Discovery Cutoff: January 12, 2012
In the interest of judicial economy, the Parties seek to avoid unnecessary discovery and motion practice scheduling conflicts.
STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES by and through their respective counsel of record herein that:
1. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's reply shall be continued to either, or as otherwise ordered by this Court1:
Plaintiff's Proposed Briefing Schedule
• Plaintiff's Opposition: 12/23/11
• Plaintiff's Opposition: 12/14/11
Defendant's Proposed Briefing Schedule
• Defendant's Reply: 1/6/12
• Defendant's Reply: 12/30/11
The hearing date for Defendant's motion would continue to be January 13, 2012
2. The deadline for expert disclosure shall be continued to January 2, 2012;
3. Non-expert discovery cutoff shall be continued to December 23, 2011;
4. The last day to hear motions shall be continued to January 13, 2012;
5. The deadline for disclosing rebuttal experts shall be December 30, 2011;
6. The expert discovery cutoff shall be January 12, 2012;
7. Any other previously scheduled dates that the Court deems appropriate shall be rescheduled accordingly.
1 The Parties could not reach mutually acceptable dates after meeting and conferring.
In the alternative, the Parties respectfully request that the Court schedule an emergency Case Management Conference to discuss the proposed schedules, as well as a continuance of the current trial date of January 30, 2012.
ORDER
The foregoing stipulation having been entered and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The current deadlines for this case shall be modified as follows:
1. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be continued to 12/23/11 and Defendant's reply shall be continued to 1/6/12
2. The deadline for expert disclosure shall be continued to January 2, 2012;
3. Non-expert discovery cutoff shall be continued to December 23,2011;
4. The hearing for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall remain on January 13, 2012;
5. The last day to hear motions shall be continued to January 13, 2012;
6. The deadline for disclosing rebuttal experts shall be December 30, 2011;
7. The expert discovery cutoff shall be January 12, 2012.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF ORDERED.
________________________________
Attorneys for Plaintiff
________________________________
Attorneys for defendant
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judge Samuel Conti