In re LDK Solar Securities Litigation

Filing 316

ORDER EXTENDING EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF TO DECEMBER 15, 2009. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 19, 2009. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2009)

Download PDF
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 28 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP James J. Farrell (Bar No. 166595) james.farrell@lw.com 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 Facsimile: (213) 891-8763 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP John C. Tang (Bar No. 212371) john.tang@lw.com Raymond A. Gallenberg (Bar No. 239484) ray.gallenberg@lw.com 140 Scott Drive Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: (650) 328-4600 Facsimile: (650) 463-2600 Attorneys for Defendants COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Herbert E. Milstein Joshua S. Devore Matthew B. Kaplan hmilstein@cohenmilstein.com 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Lead Counsel for the Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re LDK SOLAR SECURITIES LITIGATION ____________________________________ This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. MASTER FILE NO. C-07-05182-WHA (BZ) RENEWED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF NOVEMBER 16, 2009 ORDER 686597.1 1 RENEWED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF MASTER FILE NO. C-07-05182-WHA (BZ) 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 28 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court's Third Amended Case Management Order ("CMO") dated July 8, 2009 (Dkt. 275), the cutoff for all expert discovery is December 3, 2009; WHEREAS, on October 29, 2009, pursuant to the CMO, Plaintiff identified the four experts they intend to use in this case and served the reports of these experts on Defendants, generally on the topics of the market in which LDK Solar operated, technical aspects relating to LDK's production, accounting, and damages; WHEREAS, on November 12, 2009, pursuant to the CMO, Defendants identified the four experts they intend to use in this case and served the reports of these experts on Plaintiffs; WHEREAS, pursuant to the CMO, Plaintiffs' experts are due to serve rebuttal reports on November 19, 2009; WHEREAS, the expert reports address complex issues that require extensive preparation, consultation and analysis; WHEREAS, no expert depositions were able to be scheduled during the period during which the parties' experts were preparing their opposition and rebuttal reports, due to the necessities of focusing on the preparation of those reports; WHEREAS, pursuant to the CMO, the parties have determined to depose each other's experts after the rebuttal reports are served; WHEREAS, the eight experts designated by the parties are located at different locations on both the east and west coasts of the United States; WHEREAS, the Thanksgiving holiday interferes with scheduling depositions during the week of November 23, 2009, due to the holiday plans of witnesses, counsel, and support personnel, and in light of the availability and cost of flights and related travel arrangements; WHEREAS, several of the experts are currently involved in other litigation, a fact which further complicates deposition scheduling; WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred, and have agreed that the expert discovery cutoff should be extended to December 15, 2009 in order to allow each side a reasonable opportunity to conduct expert depositions; and 686597.1 1 1 RENEWED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF MASTER FILE NO. C-07-05182-WHA (BZ) 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 28 WHEREAS, the Court denied a previous stipulated extension of the expert discovery cutoff by Order dated November 16, 2009 for lack of good cause shown; NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and respectfully submit as follows: 1. The parties apologize for failing to include a more detailed explanation of the reasons for the requested extension in their Stipulation filed on November 10, 2009. In light of the reasons explained herein, the parties respectfully renew their stipulation for the Court's consideration, and respectfully submit that there is good cause for the requested extension, which affects only the expert discovery cutoff date and is necessary for them to fairly present their cases. The requested extension will not impact the trial date currently scheduled for March 22, 2010. For the reasons above, the Parties respectfully request the Court reconsider its denial of the requested extension. 2. The Third Amended Case Management Order ("CMO") shall be amended for the limited purpose of extending the cutoff for all expert discovery to December 15, 2009. No changes to any of the other deadlines in the CMO will result from this Stipulation. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: November 18, 2009 COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC By /s/ Joshua S. Devore Joshua S. Devore Lead Counsel for the Class Dated: November 18, 2009 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP By /s/ John C. Tang John C. Tang Attorneys for Defendants I, Joshua S. Devore, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Renewed Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Expert Discovery Cutoff. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I attest that John C. Tang concurs in this filing. 686597.1 1 2 RENEWED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF MASTER FILE NO. C-07-05182-WHA (BZ) 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 28 686597.1 1 * * * PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: November ___, 2009 UNIT ED ER N F D IS T IC T O R 3 RENEWED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF MASTER FILE NO. C-07-05182-WHA (BZ) A C LI FO illia Judge W m Alsup R NIA Hon. William AlsupERED RD UnitedIS SO O IT States District Judge S S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O NO RT H

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?