Zeisel v. Diamond Foods, Inc.

Filing 163

ORDER GRANTING 160 Stipulated Request Amending June 13, 2011 Order Scheduling Trial and Pretrial Matters. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 8/30/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2011)

Download PDF
Case3:10-cv-01192-JSW Document160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Winston & Strawn LLP 10 Jeffrey J. Lederman (SBN: 104622) jlederman@winston.com Jeffrey S. Bosley (SBN: 167629) jbosley@winston.com Amanda L. Groves (SBN: 187216) agroves@winston.com Lindsay C. Llewellyn (SBN: 257936) lcllewellyn@winston.com Sean D. Meenan (SBN: 260466) smeenan@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 Attorneys for Defendant DIAMOND FOODS, INC. 11 Filed08/29/11 Page1 of 3 Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE, LLC 429 Forbes Avenue, 17th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 281-8400 Fax: (412) 281-1007 Email: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com Counsel for Plaintiff ELLIOT ZEISEL Janet Lindner Spielberg (Bar No. 221926) LAW OFFICE OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 392-8801 Fax: (310) 278-5938 Email: jlspielberg@jlslp.com Counsel for Plaintiff ELLIOT ZEISEL 12 13 Michael D. Braun (Bar No. 167416) BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C. 10680 W. Pico Blvd., Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (310) 836-6000 Fax: (310) 836-6010 Email: service@braunlawgroup.com 14 15 16 17 Counsel for Plaintiff ELLIOT ZEISEL 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 22 23 24 25 ELLIOT ZEISEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 26 DIAMOND FOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation, 27 Case No. 3:10-cv-01192 JSW (EDL) JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING JUNE 13, 2011 ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL MATTERS Defendant. Date Complaint Filed: March 22, 2010 28 JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL MATTERS Case No. 3:10-CV-01192 JSW (EDL) Case3:10-cv-01192-JSW Document160 1 Filed08/29/11 Page2 of 3 Pursuant to this Court’s Civil Standing Orders, October 19, 2010 Order Scheduling Trial and 2 Pretrial Matters, February 3, 2011 Order Amending October 19, 2010 Order Scheduling Trial and 3 Pretrial Matters, June 13, 2011 Order Amending February 3, 2011 Order Scheduling Trial and 4 Pretrial Matters, and Civil Local Rules 6-2, 7-1(a) and 7-12, Plaintiff Elliot Zeisel (“Plaintiff”) and 5 Defendant Diamond Foods, Inc. (“Diamond”) (collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate and agree as 6 follows: 7 8 9 WHEREAS, on October 19, 2010 the Court entered its Order Scheduling Trial and Pretrial Matters [Docket No. 41] (“October 2010 Scheduling Order”); WHEREAS, on February 3, 2011 the Court modified the October 2010 Scheduling Order 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Winston & Strawn LLP 10 pursuant to the parties’ Joint Stipulated Request and entered its Order Amending Order Scheduling 11 Trial and Pretrial Matters [Docket No. 66] (“February 2011 Scheduling Order”); 12 WHEREAS, on June 13, 2011 the Court modified the February 2011 Scheduling Order 13 pursuant to the parties’ Joint Stipulated Request and entered its Order Amending Order Scheduling 14 Trial and Pretrial Matters [Docket No. 158] (“June 2011 Scheduling Order”); 15 WHEREAS, in an attempt to avoid motion practice regarding certain depositions, the Parties 16 are in the process of negotiating an agreement by which Diamond will produce additional documents 17 in lieu of certain depositions; 18 WHEREAS, the Parties have been working diligently and expeditiously to conduct fact 19 discovery in this matter, have successfully reached agreement on nearly all discovery issues to date 20 and respectfully request a two-week extension of the expert discovery and disclosure cut-off dates to 21 allow for Parties to resolve their remaining discovery disputes– mostly related to a single deposition 22 – described in the accompanying declarations; 23 24 THEREFORE, the undersigned Parties submit this stipulated request and respectfully request the Court amend the June 2011 Scheduling Order as follows: 25 Jury Trial Date: Monday, 1/30/2012, at 8:00 a.m., 10-day estimate (no change) 26 Pretrial Conference: Monday, 1/9/2012, at 2:00 p.m. (no change) 27 Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions: Friday, 11/4/2011, 9:00 a.m. (no change) 28 Last Day for Expert Discovery: Friday, 11/4/2011 (previously 10/21/2011) 1 JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL MATTERS Case No. 3:10-CV-01192 JSW (EDL) Case3:10-cv-01192-JSW Document160 Filed08/29/11 Page3 of 3 1 Last Day for Expert Disclosure: Friday, 10/14/2011 (previously 9/30/2011) 2 Close of Non-Expert Discovery: Wednesday, 8/31/2011 (no change) 3 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. 5 Respectfully submitted, 6 Dated: August 29, 2011 7 STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE, LLC By: 8 9 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Winston & Strawn LLP 10 Dated: August 29, 2011 11 13 _ WINSTON & STRAWN LLP By: 12 /s/ Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. Attorneys for Plaintiff ELLIOT ZEISEL /s/ Amanda L. Groves Amanda L. Groves Attorneys for Defendant DIAMOND FOODS, INC. 14 15 16 17 18 I, Amanda L. Groves, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. 19 /s/ Amanda L. Groves Amanda L. Groves 20 21 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: August 30, 2011 _______________ ________________________________ The Honorable Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL MATTERS Case No. 3:10-CV-01192 JSW (EDL)

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?