Federal Trade Commission v. Wellness Support Network, Inc. et al

Filing 123

ORDER GRANTING re 122 STIPULATION To Revise Schedule :re 119 First MOTION to Strike Expert Testimony of Dr. M. Arthur Charles filed by Robyn Held, Wellness Support Network, Inc., Robert Held. Responses/Oppositions due by 7/26/2013. Replies due by 8/2/2013. Motion Hearing previously set for 8/16/13 at 9:30 AM has been re-set for 9/27/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Motion for Summary Judgmen t due by 11/1/2013. Replies due by 11/22/2013. Responses due by 11/15/2013. Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing previously set for 11/8/13 at 9:30 AM has been re-set for 12/20/2013 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Signed, as modified, by Judge Joseph C.Spero on 7/18/13. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

MITCHELL S. FUERST
Florida Bar No. 264598
[e-mail]
ANDREW S. ITTLEMAN
Florida Bar No. 802441
[e-mail]
Fuerst Ittleman, PL
1001 Brickell Bay Drive, 32nd Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Appearing pro hac vice

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

LESLIE HOLMES
California Bar No. 192608
[e-mail]
HOLMES & USOZ, LLP
333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 805
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorney for Defendants:
WELLNESS SUPPORT NETWORK, INC.,
ROBERT HELD, and
ROBYN HELD

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
19
20

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

21
22

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 3:10-cv-04879-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE
SCHEDULE; DECLARATION OF
ANDREW S. ITTLEMAN IN SUPPORT

v.

23
24
25
26
27

WELLNESS SUPPORT NETWORK, INC., a Courtroom G, 15th Floor
corporation, ROBERT HELD, individually and Judge: Hon. Joseph C. Spero
as an officer of Wellness Support Network,
Inc., and ROBYN HELD, individually and as
an officer of Wellness Support Network, Inc.,
Defendants.

28
3:10-cv-04879-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE SCHEDULE

1

A.

2
3

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Expert discovery is complete. On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Exclude Expert

Testimony of Defendants’ Expert Dr. M. Arthur Charles. (Dkt. #119). Currently, Defendants’

4

response to Plaintiff’s Motion is due July 19, 2013 and Plaintiff’s reply is due July 26, 2013. The
5
6

hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude is scheduled to take place on August 16, 2013.

7

Within its Motion to Exclude, Plaintiff cites at length to Dr. Charles’s deposition. However,

8

Defendants did not receive the transcript of Dr. Charles’s deposition until July 10, 2013, five days

9

after Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude was filed. As a result, Defendants have requested and Plaintiff has

10

agreed to a brief extension of deadlines. Accordingly, pursuant to L.R. 6-2 and L.R. 7-12, the parties
11
12

respectfully request that the Court revise the schedule of this case as set forth below. The proposed

13

time modifications would extend the deadlines for Defendants’ response and Plaintiff’s reply by one

14

week. This modification would not affect the hearing date scheduled for Plaintiff’s Motion to

15

Exclude nor any other deadlines currently set in this matter.

16

B.

PROPOSED REVISED SCHEDULE

17
18

The parties propose the following modifications to the current schedule for this case:

19

1.

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude shall be filed by July 26, 2013.

20

2.

Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Response shall be filed by August 2, 2013.

21
22

SO STIPULATED
Dated: July 15, 2013

FUERST ITTLEMAN, PL

23

HOLMES & USOZ, LLP
24
25
26
27
28

By: /s/ Andrew S. Ittleman
Andrew S. Ittleman
Mitchell S. Fuerst
Attorneys for Defendants, WELLNESS
SUPPORT NETWORK, ROBERT HELD, and
ROBYN HELD
3:10-cv-04879-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE SCHEDULE

1

By: /s/ Leslie Holmes
Leslie Holmes
Attorney for Defendants, WELLNESS
SUPPORT NETWORK, ROBERT HELD, and
ROBYN HELD

2
3
4
5

Dated: July 15, 2013

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

6

By: /s/ Laura Fremont
Laura Fremont
Kenneth H. Abbe
Attorney for Plaintiff, FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION

7
8
9
10
11
12

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

13

DATED: _____________

_______________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15

18
19
20

RT
U
O

24

RT

27

sep
Judge Jo

ER

H

26

ero

h C. Sp

NO

25

D
RDERE
IS SO O FIED
IT
DI
AS MO

LI

23

A

22

UNIT
ED

S

21

R NIA

17

The Court GRANTS the briefing schedule on the Motion to Exclude. The hearing on the
Motion to Exclude, previously set for 8/16/13 at 9:30 AM, is re-set for Sept. 27, 2013 at 9:30 AM.
The Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed and served on or before Nov. 1, 2013. The
opposition shall be due on Nov. 15, 2013. The reply brief shall be due on Nov. 22, 2013. Hearing
on the Motion for Summary Judgment, previously set for Nov. 8, 2013, at 9:30 AM, has been re-set
for Dec. 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM.
Dated: July 18, 2013
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

FO

16

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

28
3:10-cv-04879-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE SCHEDULE

1

DECLARATION OF ANDREW S. ITTLEMAN
IN SUPPORT OF JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE SCHEDULE

2
3
4

I, ANDREW S. ITTLEMAN, declare as follows:
1.

I am counsel for Wellness Support Network, Inc. (“Wellness”), Robert Held and

5

Robyn Held, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), Defendants in the above6
7

captioned action. I make this Declaration in support of the foregoing Joint Stipulation to Revise

8

Schedule. I have personal knowledge of each of the following facts, and would and could

9

competently testify thereto if called upon to do so in a court of law.

10

2.

Reasons for the requested enlargement of time (Local Rule 6-2(a)(1)): On July 5,

11

2013, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Defendants’ Expert Dr. M. Arthur
12
13

Charles. (Dkt. #119). Currently, Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s Motion is due July 19, 2013 and

14

Plaintiff’s reply is due July 26, 2013. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude is scheduled to

15

take place on August 16, 2013.

16

Within its Motion to Exclude, Plaintiff cites at length to Dr. Charles’s deposition. However,

17

Defendants did not receive the transcript of Dr. Charles’s deposition until July 10, 2013, five days
18
19

after Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude was filed. As a result, Defendants have requested and Plaintiff has

20

agreed to a brief extension of deadlines. Accordingly, pursuant to L.R. 6-2 and L.R. 7-12, the parties

21

respectfully request that the Court revise the schedule of this case as set forth below. The proposed

22

time modifications would extend the deadlines for Defendants’ response and Plaintiff’s reply by one

23

week. This modification would not affect the hearing date scheduled for Plaintiff’s Motion to
24
25
26

Exclude nor any other deadlines currently set in this matter.
3.

Disclosure of all previous time modifications (Local Rule 6-2(a)(2)): The Plaintiff

27

filed its Complaint (Dkt #1) in this matter on October 28, 2010. Defendants’ initial deadline to

28

respond to the Complaint was November 26, 2010. On November 24, 2010, the parties filed a
3:10-cv-04879-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE SCHEDULE

1

stipulation (Dkt #5) to extend that deadline to December 29, 2010; to set the deadline for Plaintiff to

2

file its opposition to any papers filed by Defendants responsive to the Complaint to January 14, 2011;

3

and to set the hearing for such matters for February 4, 2011. The Court so ordered on November 29,

4

2010 (Dkt #6).
5

On December 15, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation (Dkt #7) to modify the times set in the

6
7

Court’s Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt #3). The Court

8

so ordered on December 15, 2010 (Dkt #8).

9

On January 26, 2011, the parties filed a Second Stipulation to Revise Schedule (Dkt #21) to

10

modify the times set in the Court’s Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR
11
12

Deadlines (Dkt #3). The Court so ordered on January 27, 2011 (Dkt #22).

13

On April 4, 2011, the Court entered an Order (Dkt #24) granting in part and denying in part

14

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint. As a result of this Order, the parties filed a Joint

15

Stipulation (Dkt # 25) on April 18, 2011 to provide timeframes for Plaintiff to re-plead its Complaint

16

in part and for Defendants to file responsive papers. The Court so ordered on April 18, 2011 (Dkt
17
18

#26).

19

On May 12, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Schedule (Dkt. #28) to extend

20

by 20 days the time for Defendants to file pleadings responsive to Plaintiff’s First Amended

21

Complaint (Dkt. #27), and to extend by 20 days the deadlines for the parties to perform the tasks

22

required by the Court’s case management orders. The Court so ordered on May 16, 2011. (Dkt. #29).

23

On June 15, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation (Dkt. # 32) to extend the deadlines for
24
25

the Plaintiff to file its opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants’ reply, and the

26

deadlines for the parties to perform the tasks required by the Court’s case management orders. The

27

Court so ordered on June 16, 2011. (Dkt. # 33).

28
3:10-cv-04879-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE SCHEDULE

1

On June 28, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Schedule (Dkt. # 34) to extend

2

the deadlines for the Defendants to file their Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to

3

Dismiss. The Court so ordered on June 29, 2011. (Dkt. # 36).

4

On September 7, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Schedule (Dkt. # 42) to
5
6
7

extend the deadlines for the parties to exchange initial disclosures. The Court so ordered on
September 29, 2011. (Dkt. #43).

8

On November 8, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Schedule RE Exchange of

9

Reports and Settlement Conference (Dkt. #53) to extend deadlines for the exchange of expert reports

10

for settlement purposes only and to reschedule the case settlement conference in this matter. The
11
12

Court so ordered on November 9, 2011. (Dkt. #54).

13

On January 18, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Schedule (Dkt. #62) to

14

extend deadlines for the exchange of expert reports for settlement purposes only, to reschedule the

15

case management conference in this matter, and to reschedule the case settlement conference in this

16

matter. This Court so ordered on January 23, 2012. (Dkt. # 63).
17
18

On March 13, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Schedule (Dkt. #65) to

19

reschedule the Settlement Conference before the Honorable Judge Corley from May 4 to May 11,

20

2012. The Court so ordered on March 15, 2012 (Dkt. #66).

21
22

On May 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Continuing Deadlines
for Three Months Pending Settlement Review (Dkt. #73), to give the parties the opportunity to take

23

certain steps agreed to at the May 11, 2012 settlement conference with Judge Corley. The Court so
24
25
26
27

ordered on May 21, 2012 (Dkt.#74).
A subsequent settlement conference occurred on September 7, 2012. No settlement was
reached. (Dkt. #79).

28
3:10-cv-04879-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE SCHEDULE

On October 15, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Schedule, to reschedule

1
2

certain discovery deadlines. (Dkt. # 86). The Court so ordered on October 16, 2012. (Dkt. #88).

3

On April 30, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Schedule to reschedule

4

certain discovery deadlines by two weeks. (Dkt. #107). The Court so ordered on May 1, 2013. (Dkt.
5
6

#108).

7

On June 5, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Schedule to reschedule certain

8

briefing deadlines (Dkt. #109). The Court so ordered on June 7, 2013 (Dkt. #111). On June 18, 2013,

9

the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Revise Hearing Date to revise the hearing date of dispositive

10

motions in this matte.r (Dkt. 114). The Court so ordered on June 20, 2013. (Dkt. #116).
11
12

4.

Description of the effect the requested time modification would have on the

13

schedule for the case (Local Rule 6-2(a)(3)): The proposed time modifications would extend the

14

deadline for Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude and Plaintiff’s Reply to

15

Defendants’ Response by one-week each.

16

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
17
18
19
20
21

foregoing is true and correct, and that this Declaration was executed on July 15, 2013 at Miami,
Florida.
/s/ Andrew S. Ittleman
Andrew S. Ittleman
Attorney for Defendant

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3:10-cv-04879-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION TO REVISE SCHEDULE