R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company v. Pappas

Filing 57

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/9/2022 EXTENDING dates and deadlines as follows: John Pappas III's deadline to file an opposition to the Motion for Contempt due by 5/18/2022. Donnelley's Reply due by 6/6/2022. The #47 Motion for Contempt Hearing CONTINUED to 7/29/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Mark A. Romeo, Bar No. 173007
[e-mail]
Derek S. Hecht, Bar No. 273039
[e-mail]
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone:
949.705.3000
Fax No.:
949.724.1201
Attorneys for Plaintiff
R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY
BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation
DYLAN W. WISEMAN (SBN: 173669)
BERIT ELAM (SBN: 307389)
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1900
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants and Counter-Claimants
JOHN PAPPAS III and MERILIZ, INC.,
dba DOME PRINTING

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17
18
19
20

R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation,

23

vs.
JOHN PAPPAS III, an individual, MERILIZ,
INC., dba DOME PRINTING, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
JOHN PAPPAS III, an individual, and
MERILIZ, INC., dba DOME PRINTING,

24
25
26
27

BUCHALTER
SACRAMENTO

Trial Date: January 30, 2023
Complaint Filed: April 26, 2021

Counter-Claimants,
vs.
R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation,
Counter-Defendants.

28
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR
DEFENDANT JOHN PAPPAS III TO
OPPOSE PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT R.R. DONNELLY & SONS
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, TO ISSUE AN ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT
SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN
CONTEMPT; ORDER

Plaintiff,

21
22

CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC

BN 70125074v1

1

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PAPPAS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC

1

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company (“Donnelley”) and

2

Defendant and Counter-Claimant John Pappas III (“Pappas”) hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1.

3

Donnelley filed its Complaint in this action on April 26, 2021. Subsequently

4

Donnelley amended its Complaint to add Defendant Meriliz Inc., dba Dome Printing (“Dome”) as

5

a defendant on October 27, 2021.
2.

6
7

Pappas and Dome filed a counter-claim against Donnelley on November 3, 2021

and amended their claims on November 11, 2021.

8

3.

This case is in the midst of discovery, and is set for trial on January 30, 2023.

9

4.

On April 18, 2023, this case was reassigned from District Judge John A. Mendez to

10

Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller.
5.

11

On April 6, 2022, Donnelley filed and served a Motion for Contempt or, in The

12

Alternative, To Issue an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt

13

(“Motion”) against Pappas in this action. This Motion is set for hearing on June 28, 2022.
6.

14

Just over a month prior to the Motion’s filing, the Local Rules for the Eastern

15

District of California were amended on March 1, 2022. Some of the amendments were to Rule

16

230, which sets the civil motion calendaring procedure. Rule 230(c) was updated to set the deadline

17

for opposition to any motion to be due 14 days from the date of the motion’s filing.
7.

18

Prior to March 1, 2022, the Local Rule 230(c) set the deadline for opposition to any

19

motion to run 14 days preceding the hearing date on the motion. At the time of the Motion’s filing,

20

Counsel for Defendants were under the impression that the prior version of Local Rule 230(c)

21

governed and would have made the Opposition to the Motion due June 14, 2022. However, the

22

deadline was in fact governed by the new version of Rule 230(c) and therefore was due April 20,

23

2022.

24
25
26

8.

Counsel for Defendants became aware of the rule change on April 26, 2022, after

the deadline for the Opposition under new Rule 230(c) passed.
9.

On April 27, 2022 Defendants requested an extension to oppose Donnelley’s

27

Motion. In light of the recent rule change, Donnelley agreed to a courtesy extension on the deadline

28

for Pappas to file an opposition to the Motion. Donnelley agreed to make the new deadline for

BUCHALTER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SACRAMENTO

BN 70125074v1

2

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PAPPAS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC

1

Pappas’ opposition May 18, 2022.
10.

3
4

The Parties agree that Donnelley’s deadline to file a reply should be set for June 6,

11.

2

Under this modified briefing schedule, there would be no prejudice to Donnelley as

2022.

5

it would have nearly three weeks to file any reply. Defendants agreed to extend the reply deadline

6

beyond the standard 10 days under Local Rule 230(d) to accommodate the paternity leave of

7

Donnelley’s counsel. Nevertheless, all briefing would still be submitted to the Court three weeks

8

before the hearing date.

9

12.

Accordingly, it is hereby agreed and stipulated by the Parties that Pappas’ deadline

10

to file an opposition to the Motion is extended to May 18, 2022, and that Donnelley’s deadline to

11

file a reply is extended to June 6, 2022.

12

13.

Additionally, on April 29, 2022, the Court continued the hearing date for the Motion

13

to July 8, 2022. Counsel for Defendants is in trial in Los Angeles on that date (up through July 14,

14

2022) and therefore the Parties have stipulated and request that the Court extend the hearing date

15

to the next available date, after July 14, 2022.

16

STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY:

17

Dated: May 3, 2022

LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.

18
19

/s/Derek S. Hecht (as authorized on 5/3/22)
Mark A. Romeo
Derek S. Hecht
Attorneys for Plaintiff
R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY

20
21
22

Dated: May 3, 2022
BUCHALTER, APC

23
24

/s/Dylan W. Wiseman
Dylan W. Wiseman
Berit L. Elam
Attorneys for Defendants and CounterClaimants JOHN PAPAS III and Meriliz, Inc.,
dba Dome Printing

25
26
27
28
BUCHALTER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SACRAMENTO

BN 70125074v1

3

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PAPPAS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC

ORDER

1
2
3

The Court having considered the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing,
HEREBY ORDERS that:

4

1) Defendant and Counter-Claimant John Pappas III’s deadline to file an opposition to

5

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company’s (“Donnelley”)

6

Motion for Contempt or, in The Alternative, To Issue an Order to Show Cause Why

7

Defendant Should Not Be Held in Contempt (“Motion”) is extended to May 18, 2022,

8

and Donnelley’s deadline to file a reply is extended to June 6, 2022.

9

2) The hearing date on Donnelley’s Motion is continued from July 8, 2022 to July 29,

10

2022 at 10:00 a.m..

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: May 9, 2022.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BUCHALTER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SACRAMENTO

BN 70125074v1

4

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PAPPAS TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00753-KJM-AC