Bowles, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al

Filing 47

ORDER RE 45 Motions to Modify Court's Scheduling Orders, signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 1/12/2012. (Last day to file the proposed Joint Scheduling Order is continued to 1/23/2012, and Jury Trial will be heard 4/2/2013 at 09:00 AM through 4/15/2013 in Courtroom 3 before Judge Joseph R. Goodwin.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Philip C. Bourdette SBN 47492
Miriam Bourdette SBN 151980
BOURDETTE & PARTNERS
2924 West Main Street
Visalia, CA 93291
[phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Simona A. Farrise SBN 171708
Leigh A. Kirmsse SBN# 161929
Farrise Firm PC
225 South Olive St., Ste 102
Los Angeles, CA 90012
310-424-3355
FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Sharon J.Arkin SBN #154858
The Arkin Law Firm
333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs

20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
22
23
24

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRESNO DIVISION

25
26
27
28

1

1

NANCY WADDELL,

) Case No.: 1:04-cv-06343-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2

Plaintiff,

3
4
5

vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.
Defendants.

6
7

)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02404-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8

KAY UHALT and STEPHEN UHALT,
9
10
11
12

Plaintiffs,
vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

13
14

Defendants.

15
16
17

DOROTHY SETSER and HOWARD
SETSER,

)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02405-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

18

Plaintiffs,
19

vs.
20

WYETH LLC, et al.
21

Defendants
22
23
24

CAROL HILL and LEONARD HILL

25
26
27
28

)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02394-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
WYETH LLC. et al
Defendants.

2

1
2

)
)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02395-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MARIANNE PHILLIPS and WILLIAM
PHILLIPS,

3

Plaintiffs,
4

vs.
5

WYETH LLC, et al.
6
7

Defendants.
8
9

)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02384-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GLORIETTE MCPHERSON,

10

Plaintiff,
11

vs.
12

WYETH LLC, et al.
13
14

Defendants.
15
16

BETTY CRAVEN and GEORGE CRAVEN,

)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02382-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17

Plaintiffs,
18

vs.
19

WYETH LLC, et al.
20
21

Defendants.
22
23

SHIRLEY BOWLES and GERALD BOWLES,

24

Plaintiffs,

25
26
27

vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

28

Defendants.

3

)
) Case No.: 1:04-cv-06346-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1

DONNA HAMES and MICHAEL HAMES

) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02392-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2

Plaintiffs,

3
4
5

vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

6

Defendants.

7
8

VICTORIA POOLE and DELBERT POOLE

)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02397-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9
10
11
12

Plaintiffs,
vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

13
14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO MODIFY COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDERS

17

On January 10, 2012, counsel filed in each of the above styled actions “Notice of
18
19

Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, Declaration of Miriam Bourdette and (Proposed)

20

Order.” The court construes the notices as motions to modify scheduling orders.

21

On December 12, 2011, I issued an order that all counsel meet and confer regarding a

22

Joint Scheduling Order for the remand group 2 cases. If counsel reached an agreement they
23
24

were to submit the proposed scheduling order to the court no later than January 16, 2012.

25

Counsel noted in the present motion that January 16, 2012, is Martin Luther King Day and

26

the courts are closed. This fact has no bearing on the directive to the parties to file a joint

27

scheduling order by that date. Filings can always be made via CM/ECF on a court holiday.

28

Counsel further asserted they could not file the Joint Scheduling Order before that date

4

1
2

because the court would not have had time to consider this motion and rule on it. The first
modification the parties seek, therefore, is to have an extension of time to prepare and file

3

the Joint Scheduling Order so that the court could consider the other problems and
4
5

suggestions. I hereby GRANT the motion on those grounds and ORDER the last day to

6

file the proposed Joint Scheduling Order be continued to January 23, 2012.

7

Plaintiffs’ counsel stated in the motion that they do not have the resources to try more

8

than one case at a time, and prepare for the next, even with two firms engaged. They
9
10

asserted that both firms are small firms and cannot hire or retain the many experienced trial

11

lawyers that would be needed. Given that assertion, plaintiff’s counsel requested that the

12

trial dates for remand group 2 cases start after conclusion of the trial dates for remand group

13

1 and do not overlap.

14

Exhibit A, attached to the motion, included a table with proposed trial dates for all
15
16

remanded cases. The trials still are limited to the 10 (ten) days the court ordered for each

17

plaintiff and when possible start the day after the preceding trial, even when in the middle

18

of the week. As to remand group 2 cases, the proposed schedule also took into account

19

previously scheduled trials in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division before

20

Judge Davila, as well as holidays occurring from October 2012 through April 2013. These
21
22

include Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Martin Luther King Day and

23

President’s Day, on which the Courts are closed and Passover, which is on March 25–26,

24

2013.

25

Taking into account the holidays mentioned and previously scheduled trials before
26
27

Judge Davila, trial dates for the above styled cases will proceed as follows:

28

5

1

•

Waddell v. Wyeth, case number 1-04-cv-06343-JRG, trial dates October 22,

2

2012 – November 2, 2012;
3
4

•

January 15, 2013;

5
6

Uhalt v. Wyeth, case number 1-10-cv-02404-JRG, trial dates January 2, 2013-

•

7

Setser v. Wyeth, case number 1-10-cv-02405JRG, trial dates January 16, 2013January 30, 2013;

8

•

Hill v. Wyeth, case number 1-10-cv-02394-JRG, trial dates January 31, 2013-

9

February 13, 2013;

10
11

•

12
13

Phillips v. Wyeth, case number 1-10-cv-02395-JRG, trial dates February 14,
2013 – February 28, 2013.

•

McPherson v. Wyeth, case number 1-10-cv-02384-JRG, trial dates March 1,

14

2013 – March 14, 2013.

15
16

•

17
18

Craven v. Wyeth, case number 1-10-cv-02382-JRG, trial dates March 15, 2013 –
April 1, 2013.

•

Bowles v. Wyeth, case number 1-04-cv-06346-JRG, trial dates April 2, 2013 –

19

April 15, 2013.

20
21

•

22
23

Hames v. Wyeth, case number 1-10-cv-02392-JRG, trial dates April 16, 2013 –
April 29, 2013.

•

Poole v. Wyeth, case number 1-10-cv-02397-JRG, trial dates April 30, 2013 –

24

May 13, 2013.
25
26
27

The trials will be no longer than 10 (ten) working days. After seven years of

28

discovery and extensive experience trying these cases there should be no “unforeseen

6

1
2

interference” for which the parties cannot adjust. If a case does not require the entire
time allotted for trial after the evidence is complete, the next trial will start even if there

3

is a deliberating jury in the preceding case. If a case settles prior to trial, the next
4
5

scheduled case will immediately move up and commence on the trial dates established

6

for the settling case. If any of the cases before Judge Davila in the Northern District of

7

California, San Jose Division settle or the trial dates are condensed in any manner the

8

next trial on the this schedule will be moved up accordingly.
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED:
12
13
14

Dated: January 12, 2012

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7