Valentine et al v. Nebuad, Inc. et al

Filing 96

STIPULATION AND ORDER rescheduling the Initial Case Management Conference after the resolution of the motions to dismiss. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/02/09. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2009)

1 THOMAS R. BURKE (CA State Bar No. 141930) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 2 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 600 San Francisco, California 94111 3 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] 4 Email: 5 JOHN D. SEIVER (admitted Pro Hac Vice) ADAM S. CALDWELL (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 6 RONALD G. LONDON (admitted Pro Hac Vice) ELIZABETH A. DROGULA (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 7 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 8 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: [phone] [phone] 9 Facsimile: Email: [e-mail] 10 Attorneys for Defendant BRESNAN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 11 [ADDITIONAL PARTIES AND COUNSEL 12 LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Rescheduling Initial Case Management Conference Case No. C08 05113 TEH (EMC)

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION DAN VALENTINE, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. NEBUAD, INC., et al. Defendants.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESCHEDULING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO A DATE THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE RESOLUTION OF THE DEFENDANTS PENDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Case No. C08 05113 TEH (EMC)

Complaint Filed: November 10, 2008 Trial Date: None Set

1 2 3 4 5

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiffs and Defendants Bresnan Communications, Cable One, CenturyTel, Embarq, Knology, and WOW! (collectively, the ISP Defendants ) and Defendant NebuAd hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. This putative class action complaint proceeding was filed on November 10,

6 2008. That same day the Court issued an Order scheduling the Initial Case Management Conference 7 for February 23, 2009. (DE #2) Other deadlines (including the times to meet and confer, file an 8 9 10 11
2. On December 22, 2008 Defendant NebuAd filed a motion to dismiss. (DE # 4) ADR certification and stipulation, file a Rule 26(f) Report, make initial disclosures, and file a Joint Case Management Statement, were set for February 2 and 16, 2009. (DE # 2)

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

12 In addition, stipulations extending the ISP Defendants response dates and rescheduling the hearing on 13 Defendant NebuAd s motion were filed in December and early January (DE ## 3, 7 and 8). 14 15
3. Thereafter, on January 6, 2009, the Clerk issued a Notice rescheduling the

16 Initial Case Management Conference for April 6, 2009, which automatically moved the other 17 deadlines to March 16 and 30, 2009. (DE # 9) 18 19 20
4. On January 30, ISP Defendants each filed Motions to Dismiss (DE ## 40, 44,

51, 52,) and Defendant Bresnan filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. (DE # 42) Hearings on all

21 motions were noticed for March 9. On February 13 Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Jurisdictional 22 Discovery (DE # 64) which was noticed for hearing on March 23. Plaintiffs thereafter filed 23 oppositions to Defendant NebuAd s and the ISP Defendants motions, referencing their Motion for 24 Jurisdictional Discovery (DE ## 65, 66 and 67) 25 26
5. The Court then stayed the Defendants motions (DE # 70) and on February 20

27 referred the Plaintiffs Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery to Magistrate Judge Edward Chen. 28
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Rescheduling Initial Case Management Conference

1
Case No. C08 05113 THE (EMC)

1

(DE #71) Judge Chen rescheduled the hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery to

2 March 25. (DE #72) 3 4
may take jurisdictional discovery of Defendant NebuAd informally, which is to be completed within 6. By Order dated March 26, 2009 (DE # 90), Judge Chen ruled that Plaintiffs

5 6 7
thirty (30) days of the Order. (DE # 90, ¶ 1) At the hearing (Judge Chen also directed that Plaintiffs may commence merits discovery of Defendant NebuAd only. (DE # # 90, ¶ 2; 94 (minute order))

8 Judge Chen ruled that no initial disclosures between the Plaintiffs and the ISP Defendants may be had, 9 and no discovery against the ISP Defendants may commence, until after the court resolves the pending 10 motions to dismiss. (DE # 90, ¶¶ 3, 5) 11

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

12 13

7.

To that end, Judge Chen directed Plaintiffs to file their oppositions to the

motions to dismiss within forty-five (45) days of the Order and that the ISP Defendants file their

14 replies 14 days thereafter. (DE # 90, ¶ 4) 15 16
stayed pending Plaintiffs receipt of jurisdictional discovery and the parties completion of the briefing 8. Because the Defendants motions to dismiss and compel arbitration are being

17 18 19
on the Defendants pending motions to dismiss, which will likely extend into May, it would be unnecessary and wasteful for the parties to discuss initial disclosures, case management, ADR, and

20 related issues, or prepare a Case Management Statement prior to the resolution of Defendants motions 21 to dismiss. However, unless the initial Case Management Conference is rescheduled, the parties 22 would have to appear for the initial Case management Conference next week, well before the hearing 23 on or resolution of the Defendants motions to dismiss. Judge Chen urged the parties to stipulate to 24 delaying the case management conference. (DE # 93 (transcript) at pp. 51-54 ) 25 26
9. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to rescheduling the initial Case

27 Management Conference to a date thirty (30) days after the resolution of Defendants motions to 28
dismiss.
2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Rescheduling Initial Case Management Conference Case No. C08 05113 TEH (EMC)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Dated: April 1, 2009

By:

/s/ Alan Himmelfarb KAMBEREDELSON LLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs /s/ John D. Seiver DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Attorneys for Defendant BRESNAN COMMUNICATIONS /s/ Simon J. Frankel COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Attorneys for Defendant CABLE ONE

Dated: April 1, 2009

By:

Dated: April 1, 2009 8 9 10 11

By:

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: April 1, 2009

By:

/s/ David A. Handzo JENNER & BLOCK, LLP Attorneys for Defendants CENTURY TEL and EMBARQ /s/ Troy Sauro PERKINS COIE LLP Attorneys for Defendants KNOLOGY and WOW! /s/ Thomas E. Gilbertsen KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP Attorney for Defendant NebuAd, Inc.

Dated: April 1, 2009

By:

Dated: April 1, 2009

By:

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the above stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT ED

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

04/02 Dated: _____________, 2009

3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Rescheduling Initial Case Management Conference

ER

N

C F Case No. 05113 D I S T I CC08 O TEH (EMC) RT

A

LI

n ___________________________ enderso ton E. H hel The Hon. Thelton E. Henderson Judge T United States District Judge

FO

R NIA

RT U O

NO

RT

H