E. & J. Gallo Winery et al v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc.
Filing
53
STIPULATION and ORDER re Modification of Pretrial Scheduling Conference Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/15/2012. (Martinez, A)
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
DAVID S WORTHINGTON, SB# 73233
2 ANDREW E. BENZINGER, SB# 219380
MELISSA M. WHITEHEAD, SB# 262123
3 2850 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 450
Sacramento, California 95833
4 Telephone: 916.564.5400
Facsimile: 916.564.5444
5
KERGER & HARTMANN, LLC
6 RICHARD M. KERGER, Pro Hac Vice
33 S. Michigan Street, Suite 100
7 Toledo, Ohio 43604
Telephone: 419.255.5990
8 Facsimile: 419.255.5997
9 Attorneys for Defendant TOLEDO
ENGINEERING CO., INC.
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION
13 E. & J. GALLO WINERY, a California
corporation,
14
Plaintiff,
15
vs.
16
TOLEDO ENGINEERING CO., INC., an
17 Ohio corporation, and DOES I through XX,
inclusive,
18
Defendants.
19
20
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-00476-LJO-GSA
STIPULATION AND ORDER
RE: MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER
Trial Date:
May 13, 2013
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiff E. & J. GALLO WINERY and
21 Defendant TOLEDO ENGINEERING CO., INC., as follows:
22
In order to facilitate Defendant’s scheduling of depositions of Plaintiff’s employees,
23 Martin Rhodes and Jeff Wilson, the parties jointly request that this Court modify its pretrial
24 Scheduling Conference Order and re-set discovery deadlines as follows:
25
BISGAAR
D
2. Expert Disclosure Deadline:
November 15, 2012
27
BRISBOI
S
October 29, 2012
26
LEWI
S
1. Fact Discovery Cut-Off:
3. Supplemental Expert Disclosure: December 5, 2012
28
4. Expert Discovery Cut-Off:
December 21, 2012
4851-9030-1713.1
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER
The parties agree that there is good cause for this modification, in light of the already
1
2 congested deposition schedule in this matter, which includes at least seven depositions already
3 scheduled between October 5 and 15, 2012, to take place in three different cities. The parties do
4 not intend or agree that the extension provided for by this stipulation shall be used to propound
5 any additional non-expert discovery.
The parties also agree that this stipulation is not intended to resolve all issues previously
6
7 raised in Defendant’s Motion to Modify Scheduling Conferencing Order, currently scheduled for
8 hearing on October 26, 2012. Rather, this stipulation, if approved by the Court, shall be an agreed
9 upon modification, pending the Court’s ruling on that Motion. The parties reserve all of their
10 arguments concerning that motion.
11
12
DATED: October 15, 2012
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP
By:
13
/s/ Melissa M. Whitehead
Melissa M. Whitehead
Attorneys for Defendant TOLEDO
ENGINEERING CO., INC.
14
15
16 DATED: October 15, 2012
17
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
By: /s/ Steven N. Williams
Steven N. Williams
Attorneys for Plaintiff E. & J. GALLO WINERY
18
19
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
LEWI
S
BRISBOI
S
BISGAAR
D
28 ///
4851-9030-1713.1
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
ORDER
1
///
2
ORDER
3
4
In light of the stipulation, and for good cause showing, the Court orders as follows:
5
1.
To allow for the taking of depositions of Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Wilson, fact
6
discovery shall be cut-off on October 29, 2012; and
7
2.
The parties are required to disclose expert witnesses by November 15, 2012.
8
Supplemental expert witness disclosure, if any, shall be served by December 5, 2012. Expert
9
discovery shall be completed on or before December 21, 2012.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
13
October 15, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
14
6i0kij8d
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LEWI
S
BRISBOI
S
BISGAAR
D
28
4851-9030-1713.1
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: MODIFICATION OF PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
ORDER
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?