Rare Breed Distilling LLC v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc.

Filing 28

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 27 Stipulation filed by Rare Breed Distilling LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on March 29, 2010. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2010)

Download PDF
Case3:09-cv-04728-EDL Document27 Filed03/24/10 Page1 of 4 1 2 3 4 JEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & MARMARO LLP JAMES WESLEY KINNEAR (Bar No. 124771) JWK@jmbm.com Two Embarcadero Center, Fifth Floor San Francisco, California 94111-3824 Telephone: (415) 398-8080 Facsimile: (415) 398-5584 Attorneys for Plaintiff RARE BREED DISTILLING, LLC 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P RINTED ON RECYCLED P APER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RARE BREED DISTILLING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, CASE NO. CV-09-4728 EDL STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PENDING DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE (LOCAL RULES 6-2, 7-12) Dept: Judge: Courtroom E, 15th Floor Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. LaPorte HEAVEN HILL DISTILLERIES, INC., a Kentucky Corporation, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Subject to the approval of the Court, plaintiff Rare Breed Distilling LLC ("Rare Breed") and defendant Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc., ("Heaven Hill") stipulate with respect to the following facts: A. On February 17, 2010, the parties stipulated to continue all deadlines to respond to pending discovery requests by 30 days to allow the parties to participate in settlement discussions (Document No. 26). B. The parties' current deadline to complete mediation is ninety days following the Court's denial of defendant's motion to transfer venue, dated January 25, 2010 (Documents Nos. 16, 25). Rare Breed v. Heaven Hill, Case No. CV 09-4728 EDL Stipulation To Extend Time To Respond To Pending Discovery Requests And To Continue Trial Date 985400v1 Case3:09-cv-04728-EDL Document27 Filed03/24/10 Page2 of 4 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 P RINTED ON RECYCLED P APER C. D. E. The current discovery cut off is July 30, 2010. The current trial date is January 31, 2011. Defendant's production of documents is due Friday, March 26, 2010. Defendant's responses to plaintiff's first set of special interrogatories are due March 30, 2010. Plaintiff's deadlines to respond to pending discovery are set out in the February 17, 2010, stipulation. F. On February 23, 2010, the parties' principals met in Chicago to discuss settlement. The parties met again by telephone on March 17, 2010, to discuss settlement. The parties' discussions have been productive. Because the subject matter of the litigation is in part defendant's trade dress, however, each round of discussions requires a significant period of time for the preparation of iterations of proposed design changes. That is, approximately two weeks were required after the parties' first in person meeting in Chicago for defendant to prepare proposed design changes, and approximately an additional two weeks will be required for the next round of proposed changes. G. The parties anticipate reviewing a new set of proposed design changes during the week of March 29, 2010. Another round of proposed changes (requiring another two weeks) may or may not be necessary to determine if a settlement is possible. H. Accordingly, the parties seek to continue all pending deadlines to respond to discovery by an additional 30 days. The parties seek to continue the deadline to complete mediation by 30 days, to May 25, 2010. Because the requested extensions of time will push plaintiff's deadline to respond to defendant's first request for production of documents to May 22, and the current discovery cut off is July 30, the parties further seek to continue the current trial date, the current discovery cut off, and all associated dates by between 30 and 60 days, as the Court's calendar may allow. I. There is good cause for extending discovery deadlines, mediation deadlines, and the trial date. The parties' principals have held good faith and productive meeting in person to pursue settlement. Settlement of trade dress disputes necessarily requires significant time because of the time required to create new designs that will meet defendant's needs but avoid plaintiff's claims. -2Rare Breed v. Heaven Hill, Case No. CV 09-4728 EDL Stipulation To Extend Time To Respond To Pending Discovery Requests And To Continue Trial Date 985400v1 Case3:09-cv-04728-EDL Document27 Filed03/24/10 Page3 of 4 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 P RINTED ON RECYCLED P APER The parties are diligently pursuing these discussions and design changes. They are also diligently pursuing discovery both parties have served requests for production and interrogatories; defendant has served requests for admission. Both parties are diligently gathering documents and interviewing witnesses. But they believe that their time and resources will be well spent in pursuing the settlement discussions underway without incurring the additional expense of responding to the pending formal discovery demands. Extending the pending deadlines does not leave enough time before the discovery cut off to complete discovery, particularly depositions of party and third-party witnesses. Subject to the approval of the Court, the parties stipulate as follows: 1. All deadlines to respond to pending discovery as set forth in the parties' February 17, 2010 stipulation (Document No. 26) shall be extended by 30 days. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Mediation shall be completed no later than May 25, 2010. The non expert discovery cut off shall be August 29, 2010. Initial expert disclosures shall be made no later than August 29, 2010. Rebuttal disclosures shall be made no later than September 12, 2010. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than October 15, 2010. The last day for hearing dispositive motions shall be December 9, 2010. Trial shall be continued from between 30 and 60 days as the Court's calendar may allow, with the final pretrial conference scheduled by the Court according to the trial date. Dated: March 24, 2010 JEFFER, MANGELS, BUTLER & MARMARO JAMES WESLEY KINNEAR Dated: March 24, 2010 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY ROBERT P. ANDRIS LAEL D. ANDARA By: /s/ Robert P. Andris Attorneys for Defendant HEAVEN HILL DISTILLERIES, INC. By: /s / James Wesley Kinnear Attorneys for Plaintiff RARE BREED DISTILLING, LLC -3- 985400v1 Rare Breed v. Heaven Hill, Case No. CV 09-4728 EDL Stipulation To Extend Time To Respond To Pending Discovery Requests And To Continue Trial Date Case3:09-cv-04728-EDL Document27 Filed03/24/10 Page4 of 4 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 P RINTED ON RECYCLED P APER IT IS SO ORDERED. Jury trial shall begin on _Mar___14 , 2011 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom E, 15th Floor. ___ ch __ Febr ____22 A pretrial conference shall be held on _____uary ___, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom E, 15th Floor. The last day to hear dispositive motions shall be December 7, 2010. Dated: March 29, 2010 ______________________________________________ ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge -4- 985400v1 Rare Breed v. Heaven Hill, Case No. CV 09-4728 EDL Stipulation To Extend Time To Respond To Pending Discovery Requests And To Continue Trial Date

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?