From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pena v. Meeker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 18, 2013
C 00-04009 CW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)

Opinion

C 00-04009 CW

03-18-2013

VAN A. PENA, Ph.D., M.D., Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY MEEKER, et al., Defendant.

LAWRENCE J. KING Attorneys for Plaintiff Van A. Pena


LAWRENCE J. KING Attorney for Plaintiff Van A. Pena

UNNOPPOSED REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE UNTIL JULY 15, 2013


Current Trial Date: May 13, 2013


Requested Trial Date: July 15, 2013

NOW COMES PLAINTIFF VAN A. PENA and requests that this Court continue the current trial date of May 13, 2013 until July 15, 2013. The reason for this request is that Plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Barry Ben-Zion, will be out of the country during the period the case is currently scheduled for trial. The parties have met and conferred and agreed, subject to the Court's approval, to a continuance of the trial until July 15, 2013.

In response to the Court's March 6, 2013 order declining the parties' prior stipulation, counsel provides the Court the following information.

1. Plaintiff's expert Barry Ben-Zion is not available to testify in this case during the May 13, 3013 trial because he will be attending a professional conference in Europe. This is an annual conference that Dr. Ben-Zion attends every year and he made his travel plans months before the May 13, 2013 trial date was agreed to by counsel during the last Case Management Conference. Plaintiff's counsel asked Dr. Ben-Zion if there was any way he could change his travel plans so he could testify during the trial scheduled to begin May 13th. He could not.

2. Once Plaintiff's counsel discovered that Dr. Ben-Zion was unavailable, he contacted the Court's staff to find out what other dates the Court potentially had available, then contacted opposing counsel to meet & confer about the possibility of stipulating to a continuance to one of the dates the Court had potentially available. Counsel exchanged several phone calls trying to find dates that the parties, witnesses and counsel could all be available. It was ultimately determined that that none of the dates the Court's staff had indicated the Court might be available would work until November, 2013, due to conflicts among the various parties' counsels' and witness' schedules.

3. After the Court issued its order declining the parties' prior stipulation to continue the trial until November, 2013, counsel met and conferred again and one of Defendants' counsel graciously agreed to reschedule a vacation to be available the second half of July. Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel and Dr. Ben-Zion are also available the second half of July.

4. The parties did not video-tape the expert witnesses' depositions, so presenting their testimony by video at trial was not an option.

5. Since the last Case Management Conference, the parties participated in a mediation with Magistrate LaPorte. Although the parties exchanged substantial new settlement proposals during the mediation, the case has not settled. After the mediation, Magistrate LaPorte contacted counsel for each side to further discuss the possibility of settling the case. Judge Laporte expressed to Plaintiff's counsel an interest in conducting an additional mediation session when she returns from surgery. Plaintiff is willing to participate in an additional mediation session with Magistrate LaPorte. Granting this request would enable provide the parties the time to do so.

6. Defendant's counsel has authorized Plaintiff's counsel to represent to the Court that Defendant does not oppose this request

RESPECTULLY SUBMITTED.

PLAINTIFF VAN A. PENA, Ph.D., M.D

_________________

LAWRENCE J. KING

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Van A. Pena

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Having reviewed the Plaintiffs unopposed request for a trial continuance and finding good cause therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial in this matter shall be continued until July 18, 2013. The Pretrial conference shall be held on June 26, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDER.

_________________

The Honorable Claudia Wilken

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Pena v. Meeker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 18, 2013
C 00-04009 CW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)
Case details for

Pena v. Meeker

Case Details

Full title:VAN A. PENA, Ph.D., M.D., Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY MEEKER, et al., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 18, 2013

Citations

C 00-04009 CW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013)