McHale v. Silicon Valley Law Group

Filing 101

ORDER GRANTING LETTER REQUEST. Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/30/2012 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.. Signed by Judge Joseph C.Spero on 11/27/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2012)

Download PDF
GOLENBOCK E[SEMAN ASSOR BELL & PESKOE¬ęP Attorneys at Law 1 437 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022-7020 7 (212) 907-7300 I F (212) 7540330 I DIRECTDIA~ No.: (Z / ZI 907-7348 DIRECT FA~r No.: l2 / 21 754-0330 EMAIL ADDRESS:MDEVORK/N~Q GOLENBOCK. COM November 27, 2012 E-FILED, VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero United States District Court for the Northern District of California San Francisco Courthouse Courtroom G, 15th Floor 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94110 Re: McHale v. Silicon Valley Law Group ("SVLG "), Case No. C 10-04864 (JCS Dear Judge Spero: We represent the plaintiff in the above-referenced matter. We write on behalf of plaintiff and defendant to jointly request a telephonic status conference with the Court on Friday, November 30, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., or at the earliest possible time convenient to the Court, concerning the need and desire of both sides to obtain a small adjustment in the time limit for filing the packets with the Court setting forth the disputes on exhibits and testimony, which disputes require rulings by the Court prior to the final pretrial conference on March 15, 2013. This matter was the subject of the stipulation submitted this week (Doc. 99), which your Honor just denied (Doc. 100). We respectfully submit that for the reasons set forth below, a telephonic status conference would be useful so the Court will better understand why the need for this request is compelling and that the slight delay should have no effect on the Court. The Court's original scheduling Order entered September 5, 2012 ("Order," Doc. 93), required the parties to file with the Court on March 5, 2013 (ten days before the final Pretrial Conference) packets of objections to (i) eathibits, and (ii) designations of deposition testimony in the form provided for therein (the "Packets"). On September 26, 2012, the Court approved the parties' September 25 stipulation for a revised schedule for motions and the submission of the Packets (Doc. 95). On November 16, 2012, the Court approved the parties' further stipulation as to the lengths of certain of these briefs (Doc. 96). On November 19, SVLG filed a motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 98) and served two motions in limine (not yet filed per the Court's Order), and the Plaintiff served two GOLENBOCK E[SEMAN ASSOR BELL & PESKOELLP IVkagistr~te Judge Joseph C. Spero November 27, 2012 Page 2 motions in limine (not yet filed per the Court's Order) (collectively, the "Motions"). These Motions present significant issues and require substantial efforts by both sides between now and December 19, when responses are due and the Court will receive all papers. From August 2012 to date, the parties have been working long hours to meet and confer in order to narrow the issues and eliminate as many disputes as possible with respect to exhibits and the deposition testimony. SVLG's counsel is athree-lawyer firm with two partners, and Ms. Sturmer has devoted at least 50% of her time to meeting the obligation under the Order to prepare this case, with the occasional assistance from an associate attorney. In our case, three or more attorneys have been working heavily to do the same. We have been reviewing and discussing at least 17 volumes of deposition testimony and more than 600 potential exhibits. We have succeeded in narrowing this significantly, and this. work still continues productively. We think it would be counterproductive to file the evidentiary disputes as early as December 19, and, respectfully, do not think it is really possible to complete the work necessary by that date, particularly in view of the substantial work that remains to respond to the Motions. When the parties submitted their September 25 stipulation moving up the date on the Packets from March 5 to December 19, they did not fully appreciate (1) the magnitude of the consultations between them that would be required, (2) the magnitude of the work physically necessary to submit the Packets in the form required by the Court, and (3) the time needed on the Motions. We apologize for that, but in hind sight we were unrealistic to move the date up by almost three months. We just do not think the resources are available to do that part of the job by the current deadline. For this reason, this week we jointly proposed what we considered to be a limited modification as to the Packets only, to wit, filing them in January. We did not know if the Court intended to hear any argument on them, and if so, whether it would be at the January 25 hearing on the Motions, or at a later date. We proposed January 15, because that was ten days prior to the January 25 hearing, was similar to the ten day period in the September 5 Order, and almost two months before the March 15 Final Pretrial Conference, leaving enough time for the Court's rulings and for us to prepare the final deposition video clips, transcripts, and the e~ibits in response to those :rulings. We could probably file these Packets on an early date in January, if the Court preferred. The parties have been engaged, and continue to engage, in productive efforts to resolve evidentiary disputes in this case, which have resulted in filing fewer in limine motions, and will result in further stipulations narrowing our disputes. In view of this, we request an opportunity to further discuss this proposed change with the Court at a telephonic status conference on Friday, November 30, 2012, on the Court's 1:30 p.m. calendar. If this request is granted,I will appear 1659623.1 GOLENBOGK EISEMAN ASSOR BELL & PESKOE¬ęP Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero November 27, 2012 Page 3 for the Plaintiff and can be reached directly at 212-907-7348, and Debra Sturmer will appear for the Defendant and can be reached directly at 415-217-6342. Counsel understand that they are to be available at 1:30 p.m. to accept the Court's call and to remain on standby until the call is received. Respectfully, Michael S. Devorkin Clerk of the Court (by Federal Express) (Via email) Debra Sturmer, Esq. (counsel for defendant) Judge Jo RT Spero A H ER R NIA seph C. NO 1659623.1 D RDERE FO S UNIT ED OO IT IS S RT U O Dated: 11/27/12 S DISTRICT TE C TA LI cc: N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?