Denison v. Fastenal Company, et al.

Filing 19

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER to Modify Scheduling Order signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/7/2010. Non-Discovery Deadline: 9/1/2010; Expert Discovery Deadline: 9/1/2010; Expert Witness Disclosure: 7/2/2010; Rebuttal or Supplemental Expert Disclo sures: 8/2/2010; Non-Dispositive Pretrial Motions: 9/15/2010; Dispositive Motions: 10/1/2010; Hearing on Non-Dispositive Motions: 10/13/2010; Hearing on Dispositive Motions: 11/8/2010; Joint Pretrial Statement: 10/29/2010; Pretrial Conference: 11/8/2010. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
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 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP KURT A. FRANKLIN - 172715 kfranklin@hansonbridgett.com KEVIN D. REESE - 172992 kreese@hansonbridgett.com RENJU P. JACOB - 242388 rjacob@hansonbridgett.com 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 Attorneys for Defendant SHATANNA HAGEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION DREW GARRETT DENISON, Plaintiff, v. FASTENAL COMPANY, a Minnesota Corporation; FASTENAL COMPANY, USA, a Minnesota Corporation; SHATANNA LARSEN, an individual, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. No. 1:09-CV-01185-OWW-SMS JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER Defendant Shatanna Hagen, Defendant Fastenal Company and Plaintiff Drew Garrett Denison hereby submit this joint stipulation to modify the scheduling order. WHEREAS, the Court filed a Scheduling Conference Order in this case setting forth relevant deadlines in this case on November 4, 2009; WHEREAS, Defendant Hagen made its initial appearance by way of Answer on March 31, 2010; WHEREAS, the parties agree that additional time is needed to adequately -1JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01185-OWW-SMS 2305369.1 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 participate in discovery and prepare for trial in light of Defendant Hagen's recent appearance of this case; WHEREAS, the parties are considering alternative dispute resolution measures, such as mediation; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Scheduling Conference Order be modified because good cause is shown with Defendant Hagen's recent appearance. The parties agree that the Scheduling Conference Order be modified as follows: Non-Discovery Deadline - Change from 5/3/10 to 9/1/10 Expert Discovery Deadline - Change from 7/1/10 to 9/1/10 Expert Witness Disclosure - Change from 5/3/10 to 7/2/10 Rebuttal or Supplemental Expert Disclosures - Change from 6/1/10 to 8/2/10 Non-Dispositive Pretrial Motions - Change from 7/15/10 to 9/15/10 Dispositive Motions - Change from 8/2/10 to 10/1/10 Hearing on Non-Dispositive Motions - Change from 8/13/10 to 10/13/10 Hearing on Dispositive Motions - Change from 9/13/10 to 11/8/10 Joint Pretrial Statement - Change from 10/8/10 to 10/29/10. Pretrial Conference - Change from 10/18/10 to 11/8/10. DATED: April 7, 2010 By: /s/ KURT A. FRANKLIN KEVIN D. REESE RENJU P. JACOB HANSON BRIDGETT LLP Attorneys for Defendant SHATANNA HAGEN -2JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01185-OWW-SMS 2305369.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DATED: April __, 2010 By: JOHN LEE OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant FASTENAL COMPANY DATED: April __, 2010 By: GEORGE ARATA ARATA, SWINGLE, SODHI & VAN EGMOND Attorneys for Plaintiff DREW GARRETT DENISON ORDER Good cause appearing, the Court grants the parties' stipulation. The Court's Scheduling Conference Order shall be modified to the extent agreed by the parties in this stipulation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: DEAC _Sig n at ur e- END: April 7, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 emm0d64h -3JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER; CASE NO. 1:09-CV-01185-OWW-SMS 2305369.1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?