Gallo Cattle Company v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC

Filing 27

Stipulation and Order to amend the Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/5/2017. (Non Expert Discovery due by 10/16/2017: Expert Disclosure due by 10/20/2017: Rebuttal Expert Disclosure due by 11/6/2017; Expert Discovery due by 11/17/2017) (Rosales, O)

1 McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,
Wayte & Carruth LLP
2 Marshall C. Whitney, CA # 82952
[e-mail]
3 Ben Nicholson, CA # 239893
[e-mail]
4 Shane G. Smith, CA # 272630
[e-mail]
5 7647 North Fresno Street
Fresno, California 93720
6 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
8 GALLO CATTLE COMPANY d/b/a JOSEPH
GALLO FARMS, a California limited partnership
9
LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP
10 Paul T. Llewellyn, CA # 216887
Evangeline A.Z. Burbidge, CA # 266966
11 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, California 94111
12 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
13 Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
14
Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff
15 SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS USA, LLC
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

18 GALLO CATTLE COMPANY d/b/a JOSEPH
GALLO FARMS, a California limited
19 partnership,
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.

22 SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS USA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
23
Defendant.
24

Case No. 1:16-cv-01673-LJO-EPG
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO AMEND THE
SCHEDULING ORDER
HON. ERICA P. GROSJEAN
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Action Filed:
Trial Date:

October 3, 2016
June 5, 2018

25 AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS.
26
27

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, GALLO CATTLE COMPANY d/b/a JOSEPH GALLO

28 FARMS (“Gallo”) and Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS USA, LLC
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW ,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP
7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET
FRESNO, CA 93720

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER

1 (“Saputo”) respectfully submit this stipulated request that the Court grant a second, limited
2 extension of the discovery period set forth in the Amended Scheduling Conference Order (see
3 ECF 23). In support of this stipulation, the parties state as follows:
4

1.

The Court set a pretrial schedule in this case on January 24, 2017 (ECF 15), and

5 discovery opened on February 10, 2017 with the parties’ exchange of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) Initial
6 Disclosures. Thereafter the parties have mutually responded to written discovery and produced
7 documents in response to requests for production. No depositions have yet taken place nor are any
8 scheduled at present.
9

2.

Throughout the fact discovery period, the parties have informally discussed

10 settlement in good faith without achieving a resolution on their own. The parties engaged in a
11 mediation session before the Hon. James A. Ardaiz (Ret.) in Fresno, California on June 30, 2017.
12 Representatives from both parties with full settlement authority were present at the mediation.
13 The mediation was productive and the parties are hopeful that a formal resolution can be reached
14 within the next thirty (30) days. The parties are continuing to engage in settlement discussions,
15 and the Hon. James A. Ardaiz has agreed to continue to participate in the process.
16

3.

On June 9, 2017, at the parties’ request, the Court amended the Scheduling

17 Conference Order governing the pretrial phase of this action to extend the dates for the Non18 Expert Discovery Cutoff, Expert Disclosure, Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Expert Discovery
19 Cutoff in order to facilitate the June 30, 2017 mediation. (See ECF No. 21.)
20

4.

On July 10, 2017, at the parties’ request, the Court again amended the Scheduling

21 Conference Order governing the pretrial phase of this action to extend the dates for the Non22 Expert Discovery Cutoff, Expert Disclosure, Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Expert Discovery
23 Cutoff in order to allow the parties to continue discussing settlement. (See ECF No. 23.)
24

5.

On August 8, 2017, the parties appeared at the Joint Mid-Discovery Status

25 Conference in this matter. Among other things, the parties represented to the Court that they were
26 continuing to discuss settlement and that they may be requesting a further extension of the
27 discovery deadlines in order to allow these negotiations to continue. The Court indicated it was
28 inclined to grant such an extension so long as the dates for the Pretrial Conference and Trial in this
2

1 matter were not affected.
2

6.

The parties respectfully request that the Court grant a further 30-day extension of

3 the fact discovery cut-off date, with associated extensions of the expert discovery dates, in order to
4 give the parties the opportunity to continue the settlement discussions that commenced on June 30,
5 2017 prior to incurring the costs and burdens associated with fact depositions and expert
6 discovery. As per the Court’s statement at the August 8, 2017 conference, these extensions will
7 not affect the Pretrial Conference or Trial Date.
8

7.

Pursuant to L.R. 144(b), the parties state that they have previously requested and

9 received two 30-day extensions from the Court (see ECF 21 and ECF 23).
10

8.

The proposed extension will not impact any deadlines before the Court.

11

9.

Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Amended Scheduling Order

12 entered on July 10, 2017 be further amended as follows:
13
14

Event

Current Scheduling Order
Date

Proposed Scheduling Order
Date

16

Non-Expert Discovery
Cutoff

September 15, 2017

October 16, 2017

17

Expert Disclosure

September 27, 2017

October 20, 2017

18

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure

October 20, 2017

November 6, 2017

19

Expert Discovery Cutoff

November 9, 2017

November 17, 2017

20

Dispositive Motion Filing
Deadline

November 21, 2017

November 21, 2017

April 5, 2018

April 5, 2018

11:00 a.m., Dept. 10

11:00 a.m., Dept. 10

June 5, 2018

June 5, 2018

8:30 a.m., Dept. 10

8:30 a.m., Dept. 10

15

21
22
23
24

Pretrial Conference
Jury Trial

25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
3

1 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
2 Dated: August 29, 2017

McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

3
4
5
6
7
8

/s/ Ben Nicholson
Marshall C. Whitney
Ben Nicholson
Shane G. Smith
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
GALLO CATTLE COMPANY d/b/a JOSEPH
GALLO FARMS

By:

9 Dated: August 29, 2017

LEWIS & LLEWELLYN LLP

10
11
12
13
14

/s/ Paul T. Llewellyn
Paul T. Llewellyn
Marc R. Lewis
Evangeline A.Z. Burbidge
Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff
SAPUTO DAIRY FOODS USA, LLC

By:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1

-oOo-

2

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

3

I hereby attest that concurrence has been obtained from Paul T. Llewellyn, counsel for

4 Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, as indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed
5 document.
/s/ Ben Nicholson
Ben Nicholson

6
7

-oOo-

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

1
2

ORDER
Upon consideration of the Parties’ Stipulation to Amend the Scheduling Order, and for

3 good cause appearing, the Scheduling Conference Order governing the pretrial phase of the above4 captioned litigation is amended as set forth above.
5

Event

Current Scheduling Order
Date

Proposed Scheduling Order
Date

7

Non-Expert Discovery
Cutoff

September 15, 2017

October 16, 2017

8

Expert Disclosure

September 27, 2017

October 20, 2017

9

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure

October 20, 2017

November 6, 2017

10

Expert Discovery Cutoff

November 9, 2017

November 17, 2017

6

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 5, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6