Dukes et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 1038

ORDER granting # 1037 STIPULATION MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE filed by Edith Arana, Christine Kwapnoski, Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Deborah Gunter (as modified). Dispositive Motions due by 4/3/2015. Responses due by 5/1/2015. Replies due by 5/15/2015. Motion Hearing set for 6/5/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Pretrial Order due by 8/21/2015. Pretrial Conference set for 8/28/2015 02:30 PM before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Jury Selection/Jury Trial set for 9/8/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer, Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/18/2014. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Randy Renick [SBN 179652] rrr@hadsellstormer.com Cornelia Dai [SBN 207435] cdai@hadsellstormer.com HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, California 91103 Telephone: 626.585.9600 Facsimile: 626.577.7079 Joseph M. Sellers jsellers@cohenmilstein.com Christine E. Webber cwebber@cohenmilstein.com COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC West Tower, Suite 500 1100 New York Avenue Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202.408.4600 Facsimile: 202.408.4699 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 13 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., SBN 132099 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com CATHERINE A. CONWAY, SBN 98366 cconway@gibsondunn.com MICHELE L. MARYOTT, SBN 191993 mmaryott@gibsondunn.com 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 14 Attorneys for Defendant WAL-MART STORES, INC. 9 10 11 12 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 18 20 BETTY DUKES, PATRICIA SURGESON, EDITH ARANA, DEBORAH GUNTER, and CHRISTINE KWAPNOSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 21 Plaintiffs, 19 22 23 Case No. C-01-2252-CRB STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant. 24 25 26 27 28 1 STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CASE NO. C 01-2252-CRB 1941801.1 1 The undersigned counsel, on behalf of Plaintiffs Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Edith Arana, 2 Deborah Gunter, and Christine Kwapnoski (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal- 3 Mart,” and collectively, with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), hereby stipulate as follows: 4 RECITALS 5 6 WHEREAS the parties submitted a joint proposed order regarding case management on May 2, 2014, which was adopted by the Court on May 6, 2014 (Dkt. No. 1003); 7 WHEREAS the parties have propounded substantial supplemental and new discovery since 8 that Order was entered and resolved many differences regarding written discovery requests by 9 extensive conferences between the parties; 10 WHEREAS the parties are in the midst of the depositions of the five plaintiffs and have 11 agreed to schedule the depositions of Wal-Mart’s witnesses to avoid conflicting with the busy retail 12 holiday season, as needed; 13 WHEREAS despite the best efforts of both parties to comply with the existing case 14 management schedule, the parties will not be able to complete the discovery each has served by 15 November 21, 2014 as scheduled; and 16 WHEREAS in light of both parties’ diligence since the entry of the Court’s May 6 order, the 17 parties do not anticipate the need for substantial new written discovery. The new deadlines will allow 18 for an orderly completion of the written discovery both sides have already served, and, if necessary, 19 for follow-up discovery the parties could not have previously anticipated despite reasonable efforts to 20 complete discovery by the current deadline; and 21 22 WHEREAS no prior requests for extension have been made with respect to the merits discovery period. 23 STIPULATION 24 25 Accordingly, the parties now jointly stipulate and respectfully request that this Court order the following changes to the existing schedule: 26 27 Event Date certain for Wal-Mart to provide requested 28 Current Date -- Proposed New Date December 12, 2015 2 STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CASE NO. C 01-2252-CRB 1941801.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 data to plaintiffs Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff / Expert Disclosures Responsive Expert Disclosures Dispositive Motion Deadline Briefs in Opposition Briefs in Reply Proposed hearing date Joint Proposed Pretrial Order Pretrial Conference Trials November 21, 2014 February 16, 2015 December 22, 2014 January 9, 2015 February 6, 2015 February 20, 2015 March 6, 2015 May 18, 2015 May 26, 2015 June 1, 2015 March 16, 2016 April 3, 2015 May 1, 2015 May 15, 2015 June 5, 2015 August 21, 2015 August 28, 2015 September 8, 2015 8 9 10 Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), the declaration of Christine E. Webber in support of this stipulation is filed herewith. 11 12 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 13 Dated: November 17, 2014 14 15 16 17 By: /s/Christine E. Webber___________ Joseph M. Sellers Christine E. Webber COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 18 19 20 21 22 By: /s/Michele Maryott Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (SBN 132099) Catherine A. Conway (SBN 98366) Michele L. Maryott (SBN 191993) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiffs I, Christine E. Webber, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory. 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CASE NO. C 01-2252-CRB 1941801.1 1 ORDER schedule is approved. S UNIT ED 5 RT U O 4 S DISTRICT TE C TA DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 2014 ED RDER THE HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER IS SO O IT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 harle Judge C 10 A H ER LI RT 9 N F D IS T IC T O R 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CASE NO. C 01-2252-CRB 1941801.1 yer s R. Bre NO 8 R NIA 3 Pursuant to the above stipulation, the Stipulation and Order regarding the case management FO 2 C

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?