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)
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?