Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Coca-Cola Company, The

Filing 34

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MARCH 8, 2012 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. The date for completion of the settlement conference is continued to April 6, 2012. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 24, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (San Francisco Division) 4 5 6 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THE COCA-COLA COMPANY and ) DOES 1-50, ) Defendants. ) ) ______________________________________ ) FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. C11-02042 MMC and all consolidated cases STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MARCH 8, 2012 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER THEREON IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys of record herein, that the Settlement Conference in this matter, currently scheduled to be held on March 8, 2012 at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, be continued through April 6, 2012. Good cause exists for this continuance as the depositions of the plaintiffs, which are still ongoing, are taking significantly more time than anticipated due to a number of unforseen circumstances: the Plaintiffs’ requiring the use of an interpreter is making communication difficult and resulting in the question-and-answer process taking longer than expected. Further, the Defendants believe that not enough discovery has been completed thus far, and will not be completed prior to the Settlement Conference, in order to insure them that they have enough information to have a productive Settlement Conference session. Defendants have still not received Plaintiff Belete’s medical records and have only recently received medical records for Plaintiff Alemu from a health care provider that was recently revealed during the taking of his deposition. Further, Defendants need to complete taking Plaintiffs’ depositions especially with respect to their medical records, as well as Plaintiff Belete’s deposition regarding FARM ERS v. COCA-COLA, ET AL. -2- CASE NO.: C11-02042 M M C 1 other limited topics. It is critical that Defendants thoroughly review and analyze Plaintiffs’ 2 medical records to assess their claims for damages. Moreover, the parties are discussing dates 3 for additional depositions to be taken during the month of March 2012. 4 During defendant True Manufacturing’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 30(b)(6) 5 deposition taken of defendant Coca-Cola on February 15, 2012, the parties discussed at length 6 and all agreed that a meaningful and productive Settlement Conference will require more 7 discovery to be completed by the Defendants and that this discovery and the analysis of the same 8 cannot be completed in sufficient time prior to the March 8, 2012 Settlement Conference date for 9 them to obtain the requisite settlement authority. The parties do not wish to waste the Court’s 10 valuable time or the opportunity to engage in a meaningful and productive Settlement 11 Conference. Due to these unforseen circumstances and the good faith belief, based on 12 Defendants’ representations that additional discovery needs to be completed, the parties agree 13 that a March 8, 2012 Settlement Conference date would, in all likelihood, result in an 14 unproductive session. 15 The parties have contacted the clerk for Magistrate Judge Spero and have tentatively 16 calendared April 5, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. as the date for the Settlement Conference, which is the 17 earliest available date on Judge Spero’s calendar agreeable to all parties. The parties are 18 confident that sufficient discovery can be completed by April 5, 2012 to give the parties the 19 greatest opportunity at a possible resolution. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the 20 date for completion of the Mandatory Settlement Conference be continued until April 6, 2012. 21 Pursuant to local rules, this document is being electronically filed through the Court’s 22 ECF System. In this regard, counsel for defendant hereby attests that (1) the content of this 23 document is acceptable to all persons required to sign the document; (2) plaintiff’s counsel has 24 signed this document; and (3) the signed document is available for inspection upon request. ALPER & McCULLOCH 25 26 DATED: February 22, 2012 27 28 FARM ERS v. COCA-COLA, ET AL. By: /S/ DEAN ALPER DEAN ALPER Attorneys for Plaintiff FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE -3- CASE NO.: C11-02042 M M C 1 RIMAC MARTIN, P.C. 2 3 DATED: February 22, 2012 By: 4 5 /S/ ANNA M. MARTIN ANNA M. MARTIN Attorneys for Defendant BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES (improperly sued herein as THE COCA-COLA COMPANY) 6 7 COZEN O’CONNOR 8 9 DATED: February 22, 2012 By: 10 /S/ DAVID BRISCO DAVID BRISCO Attorneys for Plaintiff CNA INSURANCE COMPANY 11 12 WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN, & DICKER 13 14 DATED: February 22, 2012 By: 15 16 /S/ ERIC S. WONG ERIC S. WONG Attorneys for Defendant TRUE MANUFACTURING 17 LIBERSON & WOLFORD LLP 18 19 20 DATED: February 22, 2012 21 By: /S/ JASON N. WOLFORD JASON N. WOLFORD Attorneys for Plaintiffs ABAI ALEMU and ZAFU BELETE 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED: 25 26 24 DATED: February _____, 2012 27 By: ________________________ The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 FARM ERS v. COCA-COLA, ET AL. -4- CASE NO.: C11-02042 M M 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?