Lee v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company

Filing 112

STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTICE PLAN FOR FOUR WEEKS. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/17/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/28/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DAN MARMALEFSKY (CA SBN 95477) dmarmalefsky@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017-3543 Telephone: 213.892.5200 Facsimile: 213.892.5454 TIFFANY CHEUNG (CA SBN 211497) TCheung@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Attorneys for Defendant STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 JESSICA LEE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. 18 19 20 21 STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Vermont corporation, and TRIFECTA MARKETING GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. CV 11-0043-RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTICE PLAN FOR FOUR WEEKS Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg Action Filed: Trial Date: Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY FOR FOUR WEEKS CV 11-0043-RS sf-3289556 Jan. 4, 2011 June 23, 2014 1 2 Defendant Stonebridge Life Insurance Company (“Stonebridge”), Trifecta Marketing 3 Group LLC (“Trifecta” and collectively with Stonebridge, “Defendants”) and Plaintiff Jessica 4 Lee (collectively with Defendants, the “parties”), by and through their respective counsel of 5 record, hereby enter into the following stipulation: 6 WHEREAS on March 7, 2013 the Court issued a Case Management Scheduling Order 7 (“Scheduling Order”) stating that all non-expert discovery must be completed on or before June 8 21, 2013; 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 WHEREAS several sets of discovery requests propounded by plaintiff and Stonebridge remain outstanding; WHEREAS the parties have been engaged in pursuing other discovery, including discovery against third parties; WHEREAS, on May 22, 2013, the Court issued an Order regarding Plaintiff’s proposed plan to provide notice to the class of the pendency of this class action; WHEREAS the parties have agreed to explore private mediation in an attempt to resolve their dispute on mutually acceptable terms; WHEREAS the parties desire to preserve the status quo vis-à-vis discovery and 18 implementation of the notice plan and prevent the parties and the Court from unnecessarily 19 expending additional resources pending mediation; 20 21 22 23 THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the Court, the parties agree and stipulate as follows: 1. All discovery in this action, including third-party discovery, taking of depositions, and litigation of discovery disputes, shall be stayed for 28 days. 24 2. Implementation of the Notice Plan shall also be stayed for 28 days. 25 3. Any deadlines for responding to any outstanding discovery shall be extended 26 28 days. 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY FOR FOUR WEEKS CV 11-0043-RS sf-3289556 1 1 4. 2 3 Certain deadlines set forth in the Court’s March 7, 2013 Order shall be modified as follows: Old Deadline 4 New Deadline 5 Completion of all non-expert discovery. June 21, 2013 July 19, 2013 6 Initial expert disclosures in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). July 11, 2013 August 8, 2013 Designation of supplemental and rebuttal experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) August 9, 2013 September 6, 2013 August 30, 2013 September 27, 2013 10 Completion of all expert discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4). 11 Further Case Management Conference September 19, 2013 October 17, 2013 7 8 9 12 13 5. All other deadlines set forth in the Court’s March 7, 2013 Order, including the trial date, will remain unchanged. 14 6. All rights and objections with regard to any discovery, including any objections 15 based on the Scheduling Order or the June 21, 2013 discovery cut-off, are reserved and shall not 16 be waived by virtue of this stipulation. No party shall be deemed to have waived their right to 17 submit any outstanding discovery disputes to the Magistrate Judge by virtue of this stipulated 18 order. 19 7. No party will unilaterally seek, over the objection of another party, to further 20 extend any discovery deadlines. This provision does not impact the parties’ rights to request the 21 Magistrate Judge to compel additional discovery after the discovery cut-off in connection with a 22 timely-filed motion regarding discovery served prior to the discovery cut-off. 23 24 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY FOR FOUR WEEKS CV 11-0043-RS sf-3289556 2 1 2 Dated: May 28, 2013 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 3 By: 4 5 Attorneys for Defendant STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 6 7 /s/ Tiffany Cheung TIFFANY CHEUNG Dated: May 28, 2013 8 LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER E. SKLAVOS, PC 9 By: 10 11 12 13 Dated: May 28, 2013 /s/ Alexander Sklavos ALEXANDER SKLAVOS Attorneys for Defendant TRIFECTA MARKETING GROUP LLC EDELSON LLC 14 15 16 17 By: /s/ Ryan Andrews RYAN ANDREWS Attorneys for Plaintiff JESSICA LEE and the class 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY FOR FOUR WEEKS CV 11-0043-RS sf-3289556 3 1 ATTESTATION OF FILER 2 I, Tiffany Cheung, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been 3 4 5 obtained from each of the other signatories. See L.R. 5-1(i)(3). Dated: May 28, 2013 6 By: /s/ Tiffany Cheung TIFFANY CHEUNG MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 7 8 9 10 11 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 12 13 Dated: 14 5/28/13 Hon. Richard Seeborg United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY FOR FOUR WEEKS CV 11-0043-RS sf-3289556 4

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?