From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marker v. City of San Jose

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE FACILITY
May 9, 2013
NO.: C09-05956 RMW (N.D. Cal. May. 9, 2013)

Opinion

NO.: C09-05956 RMW

05-09-2013

MERCEDES MARKER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE and SON VU, Defendants.

RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney RICHARD D. NORTH Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE and SON VU Law Office of Michael Millen MICHAEL MILLEN Attorney for MERCEDES MARKER


RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (#88625)
NORA FRIMANN, Chief Trial Attorney (#93249)
RANDOLPH S. HOM, Senior Deputy City Attorney (#152833)
RICHARD D. NORTH, Deputy City Attorney (#225617)
Office of the City Attorney
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 535-1900
Facsimile: (408) 998-3131
Email: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF SAN JOSE and SON VU

PARTIES' STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHORTEN

TIME FOR HEARING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR

EXPERT DISCLOSURE AND EXPERT

DISCOVERY


STIPULATION

Defendants CITY OF SAN JOSE and SON VU, and Plaintiff MERCEDES MARKER (collectively the "Parties"), hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

Whereas, the trial of this case is set to begin on June 17, 2013;

Whereas, Defendants will be moving to extend time for expert disclosure and expert discovery solely as to the Independent Medical Examiner who evaluated Plaintiffs claimed injury in this case (the "Motion");

Whereas, Plaintiff will be opposing the Motion;

Whereas, the Parties have met and conferred and have agreed to a stipulate to a modified briefing schedule shortening time in light of the June 17, 2013 trial date;

Whereas, the Parties do not believe at this time that shortening the time for hearing the Motion will impact the schedule for the case;

Therefore, the Parties hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

(1) Defendants will file the Motion on May 7, 2013;
(2) Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion will be filed on or before May 10, 2013;
(3) Defendants' reply in support of the Motion will be filed on or before May 14, 2013;
(4) The hearing on the Motion will take place on May 24, 2013 at 9:00 am, in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, before Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

Respectfully submitted,

RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney

By: ______________________

RICHARD D. NORTH

Deputy City Attorney

Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE

and SON VU

Respectfully submitted,

Law Office of Michael Millen

By: ______________________

MICHAEL MILLEN

Attorney for MERCEDES MARKER

ORDER

Having read and considered the Parties' Stipulation, and finding good cause for the relief requested therein, the court orders the following:

(1) Defendants will file their motion to extend time for expert disclosure and expert discovery solely as to the Independent Medical Examiner who evaluated Plaintiff's injury in this case (the "Motion") on May 7, 2013;
(2) Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion will be filed on or before May 10, 2013;
(3) Defendants' reply in support of the Motion will be filed on or before May 14, 2013;
(4) The hearing on the Motion will take place on May 24, 2013 at 9:00 am, in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, before Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

______________________

HON. RONALD M. WHYTE


Summaries of

Marker v. City of San Jose

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE FACILITY
May 9, 2013
NO.: C09-05956 RMW (N.D. Cal. May. 9, 2013)
Case details for

Marker v. City of San Jose

Case Details

Full title:MERCEDES MARKER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE and SON VU, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE FACILITY

Date published: May 9, 2013

Citations

NO.: C09-05956 RMW (N.D. Cal. May. 9, 2013)