Schmuckley et al v. Rite Aid Corporation

Filing 485

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 07/24/23 AMENDING the following dates: Rebuttal expert disclosures (other than sampling methodology/design): 08/29/23; Expert discovery completed: 11/03/23; Last day to hear dispositive motions: 05/10/24. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ERIC W. SITARCHUK, Admitted pro hac vice
[e-mail]
KELLY A. MOORE, Admitted pro hac vice
[e-mail]
BENJAMIN P. SMITH, Bar No. 197551
[e-mail]
KEVIN M. PAPAY, Bar No. 274161
[e-mail]
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID HDQTRS.
CORP, AND THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC.
(Additional counsel listed on signature page)

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17
18
19

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ex rel. LLOYD
F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR.
Plaintiffs,

22

RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID
HDQTRS. CORP., THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC.
Defendants.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. LLOYD F.
SCHMUCKLEY, JR.,
Plaintiffs,

23
24
25
26

JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND
SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

vs.

20
21

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM JDP

Vs.
RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID
HDQTRS. CORP., THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC.
Defendants.

27
28
Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM JDP
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

1
2

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Defendants’ rebuttal experts need additional time to finish their review of the

3

1,000+ pharmacy records and medical records cited and analyzed in the three expert disclosures

4

submitted by Plaintiff State of California as represented in this action by the Division of Medi-Cal

5

Fraud and Elder Abuse (“DMFEA”);

6

WHEREAS, one of Defendants’ rebuttal experts has an upcoming medical surgery that

7

limits his availability to review the above-referenced records and perform supporting analysis;

8
9
10
11
12
13

WHEREAS, one of Defendants’ rebuttal experts has upcoming travel that limits his
availability to review the above-referenced records and perform supporting analysis;
WHEREAS, the parties agree that DMFEA will benefit from additional time to analyze
Defendants’ forthcoming rebuttal expert disclosures and supporting evidence;
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2023, Defendants asked the Parties for an approximate threeweek extension of the deadline to serve rebuttal expert disclosures;

14

WHEREAS, counsel for DMFEA is unavailable from September 19 to October 2, 2023;

15

WHEREAS, the Parties in good faith have met and conferred;

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

STIPULATION
THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, THEREFORE
HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:
The parties agree to amend the scheduling order as follows:
Event
Rebuttal expert disclosures (other
than sampling methodology/design)
Expert discovery completed
Last day to hear dispositive motion

Current Deadline
August 10, 2023

Proposed Modified Deadline
August 29, 2023

September 21, 2023
March 29, 2024

November 3, 2023
May 10, 2024

The parties agree that in this context, the term “deadline” means to conduct all depositions
(where applicable) and resolve any disputes relative to discovery by appropriate order if
necessary, and where discovery has been ordered, to obey the order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

28
1
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM JDP

Respectfully submitted,

1
2

Dated: July 21, 2023

3

By /s/ Emmanuel R. Salazar (authorized on 7/21/23)
Emmanuel R. Salazar
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor STATE OF
CALIFORNIA

4
5
6
7

Dated: July 21, 2023
WATERS & KRAUS, LLP

8

By /s/ Wm. Paul Lawrence, II (authorized on 7/21/23)
Wm. Paul Lawrence, II
[e-mail]
Waters & Kraus
37163 Mountville Road
Middleburg, VA 20117
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Qui Tam Plaintiff
LOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ROB BONTA
Attorney General of the State of California

Dated: July 21, 2023

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
By /s/ Kevin M. Papay
Benjamin P. Smith
Kevin M. Papay
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID
HDQTRS. CORP., THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM JDP

1
2

ORDER
The Court, having considered the Joint Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order, finds

3

good cause and orders the Joint Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order is approved. The court

4

notes this is the parties’ seventh request to amend the scheduling order since October 2021. As

5

such, the court will not grant any further requests for extensions save for extraordinary

6

circumstances. Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing a district

7

court's “inherent authority to manage its docket”). The court orders the scheduling order is

8

amended as follows:

9
10
11
12
13
14

Event
Rebuttal expert disclosures
(other than sampling
methodology/design)
Expert discovery completed
Last day to hear dispositive
motion

Current Deadline
August 10, 2023

Proposed Modified Deadline
August 29, 2023

September 21, 2023
March 29, 2024

November 3, 2023
May 10, 2024

The term “deadline” means to conduct all depositions (where applicable) and resolve any

15

disputes relative to discovery by appropriate order if necessary, and where discovery has been

16

ordered, to obey the order.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 24, 2023.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM JDP