Gallion v. Apple, Inc

Filing 44

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE GOVERNING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Charlene Gallion. (Kralowec, Kimberly) (Filed on 3/29/2011)

Gallion v. Apple, Inc Doc. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Jeffrey L. Fazio (146043) (jlf@fazmiclaw.com) Dina E. Micheletti (184141) (dem@fazmiclaw.com) FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP 2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315 San Ramon, CA 94583 T: 925-543-2555 F: 925-369-0344 Steven A. Schwartz (pro hac vice) (SAS@chimicles.com) Timothy N. Mathews (pro hac vice) (TNM@chimicles.com) CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 T: 610-642-8500 F: 610-649-3633 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Charlene Gallion and Christoper Corsi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLENE GALLION, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. No. CV 10-01610-RS STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE GOVERNING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CHRISTOPHER CORSI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. DANIEL CALIX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. No. CV 10-03316-RS No. CV 10-05895-RS Hon. Richard Seeborg Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to the Court's instructions, the parties have met and conferred to establish a class-certification briefing schedule. Having done so, the parties hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Plaintiffs Gallion, Corsi, and Calix (collectively, "Plaintiffs") will file their motion for class certification on or before October 21, 2011. 2. In the event Plaintiffs submit testimony in support of their opening brief, Defendant Apple, Inc. ("Apple") shall file its opposition to the motion for class certification on December 23, 2011, so as to provide Apple with sufficient opportunity to depose Plaintiffs' declarants about the matters set forth in their declarations, to the extent those declarants have not already been deposed about those matters. If Plaintiffs do not submit testimony in support of their opening brief, Apple's opposition papers shall be due November 23, 2011. 3. In the event Apple submits testimony in support of its opposition brief and Plaintiffs have submitted testimony in support of their opening brief, Plaintiffs' reply papers shall be filed on February 24, 2012, so as to provide Plaintiffs with sufficient opportunity to depose Apple's declarants about the matters set forth in their declarations, to the extent those declarants have not already been deposed about those matters. If Apple submits testimony in support of its opposition brief, but Plaintiffs have not submitted testimony in support of their opening brief, Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be due January 24, 2012. If Apple does not submit testimony in support of its opposition brief, but Plaintiffs have submitted testimony in support of their opening brief, Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be due January 24, 2012. If neither party submits testimony in support of the opening and opposition briefs, Plaintiffs' reply brief shall be due December 23, 2011. 4. Plaintiffs shall have the opportunity to submit expert rebuttal testimony in support of their reply brief. -1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE SCHEDULE GOVERNING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION NO. CV-10-01610 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 5. The hearing date for Plaintiffs' class-certification motion shall be set on or about the time Plaintiffs file their reply brief. The current schedule is based on the parties' understanding that Apple will complete its initial document production by the end of June, 2011; that no substantial follow-up discovery or modifications to the key-word searches that informed Apple's discovery efforts will be necessary in order to draft Plaintiffs' class-certification brief; that the schedules of counsel and various witnesses will allow for the taking of depositions following the completion of Apple's initial document production; and that Plaintiffs will be able to obtain necessary third-party discovery prior to the filing of their motion for class certification. In the event circumstances warrant it, this schedule is subject to modification. Respectfully submitted, DATED: March 29, 2011 Jeffrey L. Fazio Dina E. Micheletti FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP Kimberly A. Kralowec Elizabeth Newman THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP LLP Earl L. Bohachek THE LAW OFFICES OF EARL L. BOHACHEK by /s/ Dina E. Micheletti Dina E. Micheletti Attorneys for Plaintiff, Charlene Gallion, on behalf of herself and the proposed class, and Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel 19 20 21 22 23 DATED: March 29, 2011 24 25 26 27 28 Steven A. Schwartz Timothy N. Matthews CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP Rose F. Luzon James C. Shah SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP -2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE SCHEDULE GOVERNING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION NO. CV-10-01610 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DATED: March 29, 2011 DATED: March 29, 2011 by /s/ Steven A. Schwartz Steven A. Schwartz Attorneys for Plaintiff, Christopher Corsi, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, and Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel Philip Bohrer Scott E. Brady BOHRER LAW FIRM L.L.C. John P. Wolff, III Christopher K. Jones KEOGH, COX & WILSON by /s/ Scott E. Brady Scott E. Brady Attorneys for Plaintiff, Daniel Calix on behalf of himself and the proposed class Penelope A. Preovolos Andrew D. Muhlbach Heather A. Moser Samuel J. Boone Lunier MORRISON | FOERSTER LLP by /s/ Andrew D. Muhlbach Andrew D. Muhlbach Attorneys for Defendant, Apple, Inc. ORDER 21 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE SCHEDULE GOVERNING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION NO. CV-10-01610 Dated: The Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Judge