MMCA Group Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al

Filing 396

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE CHANGING DEADLINES. Plaintiff's opposition to PICA's Motion for Summary Judgment / Partial Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than January 23, 2009, and defendant's reply shall be filed no later than Jan uary 30, 2009. In light of the Court's calendar, the hearing on the motion shall be on February 20, 2009. Additionally, the hearing on HP's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Judgment on the Pleadings is continued to February 20, 2009. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 6, 2009. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Frederick J. Geonetta (SBN 114824) LITTON & GEONETTA, LLP 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Kenneth N. Frucht, (SBN 178881) LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH FRUCHT 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff MMCA Group, Ltd. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MMCA GROUP, LTD., a Virginia corporation, Plaintiff v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, PINKERTON'S, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a PINKERTON CONSULTING & INVESTIGATIONS ­ EUROPE, BUSINESS RISKS INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED, an United Kingdom corporation d/b/a PINKERTON CONSULTING & INVESTIGATIONS ­ EUROPE, PICA, an Ohio corporation, RODOLFO DIAZ, an individual, LUIS ORTEGA, an individual, WARREN ROTHER, an individual alien, ROBERT COZZOLINA, an individual, KEVIN HUNSAKER, an individual, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE CHANGING DEADLINES [Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b), Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2,7-1, 7-12] [No Hearing Required] Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

Civil Action No. CV 06-07067-MMC (EMC)

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV 06-07067-MMC (EMC) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING BREIFING AND HEARING DATES RE PICA MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff MMCA Group Ltd. ("MMCA") and Defendant PICA submit this stipulation and [proposed] order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Civil Local Rules 6-1, 62, 7-1, and 7-12, requesting that the Court extend the deadline for MMCA to file its Opposition papers against PICA's Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication (Docket 384). PICA's Motion is currently scheduled to be heard on January 30, 2009, MMCA's Opposition papers are currently due on January 9, 2008. The parties have stipulated and hereby request that the briefing and hearing schedule be extended by a period of two weeks, thus MMCA's Opposition papers be due on January 23, 2008, PICA's reply would be due on January 30, 2009, and the hearing on PICA's motion would be set for February 13, 2009. The parties are aware that the Court continued the previously filed and briefed HP Motion for Summary Judgment, , II. BACKGROUND Defendants.

On December 24, at approximately 1:00 pm, Defendant PICA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or for Partial Summary Judgment, submitting declarations of 5 witnesses, an attorney declaration and exhibits, submitted under seal. PICA's ECF filing was redacted and otherwise incomplete due to its submission under seal. PICA delivered the full version of its filings electronically at 2:40 p.m. on December 24, 2008. Based on the hearing date for PICA's motion, MMCA's response is presently due on January 9, 2009. Litton & Geonetta, LLP, the two person law firm representing MMCA along with sole proprietor Ken Frucht, Esq., is dissolving as of December 31, 2008, and L&G partner Marc Litton is no longer representing MMCA, thus two attorneys Mr. Frucht, and Fred Geonetta, rather than three, represent MMCA to respond to PICA's motion. Mr. Frucht is spending 100% of his time through January 12,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV 06-07067-MMC (EMC) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING BREIFING AND HEARING DATES RE PICA MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

2009 preparing for a Federal Court trial in a police brutality case in Sacramento, California. This trial begins January 12, 2009 and is projected to last two weeks or longer. From Plaintiff's perspective, Mr. Frucht is effectively unable to assist in MMCA's opposition. Mr. Geonetta, MMCA's other remaining counsel had preplanned and partially prepaid time off to attend to a terminally ill parent in San Diego, California from December 28 through January . In addition, PICA's motion has given rise to several issues concerning the Protective Order in effect in this litigation, as well as certain discovery matters which the parties are attempting to resolve through meeting and conferring, though Court assistance may be required should these efforts fail. For the foregoing reasons, MMCA asserts that it requires additional time to adequately prepare its opposition to PICA's motion. In addition, several witnesses who reside out of the United States or in the United States but outside of California and whom we believe are or may be necessary to respond to the PICA motion, are not available due to the Holidays. PICA and MMCA hereby stipulate that MMCA may have an additional two weeks, until January 23, 2009 to file its opposition papers. The parties to this action, including Defendant HP are cognizant that the Court has reset the hearing on HP Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Judgment on the Pleadings from January 9, 2009 to January 30, 2009, the date PICA set for the hearing of its motion. Counsel for MMCA met and conferred with counsel for HP who agreed that both HP and MMCA favor keeping the HP motion set for hearing on January 30, 2009, though neither party presumes to dictate the Court's calendar. III GOOD CAUSE EXISTS

Due to the logistical difficulties presented by PICA's Motion, which are described above, and the scheduling conflicts of Plaintiff MMCA's counsel, MMCA requires additional time to fully and adequately prepare its opposition to PICA's motion. The parties have agreed that the Opposition, Reply and hearing dates should be extended by a period of two weeks. IV CONCLUSION

CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV 06-07067-MMC (EMC) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING BREIFING AND HEARING DATES RE PICA MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

For the reasons set forth above, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the [Proposed] Order continuing the Opposition, Reply and hearing dates for PICA's Motion for

Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Partial Summary Judgment as follows

Plaintiff's Opposition Due Date: Defendant's Reply Due Date Hearing On Defendant's Motion

January 2 3, 2009 January 30, 2009 February 13, 2009

Dated: November 25, 2008

By:

//SS// Frederick Geonetta LITTON & GEONETTA, LLP 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (415)-421-4785 Attorneys for Plaintiff MMCA GROUP, LTD.

Dated: November 25, 2008

By:

//SS// Donald Simon WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN LLP 1111 Broadway, 24th Floor Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant PICA

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, plaintiff's opposition to PICA's Motion for Summary Judgment / Partial Summary Judgment shall be filed no later than January 23, 2009, and defendant's reply shall be filed no later than January 30, 2009; in light of the Court's calendar, the hearing on the motion shall be on February 20, 2009. Additionally, the hearing on HP's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Judgment on the Pleadings is continued to February 20, 2009.

______________________ IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 6, 2009. Maxine M. Chesney CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV 06-07067-MMC (EMC) United States District Judge STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING BREIFING AND HEARING DATES RE PICA MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4