The Commonwealth of Virginia v. McKesson Corporation et al
Filing
83
ORDER granting 82 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER - MODIFIED PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER filed by McKesson Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/20/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Pretrial Conference set for 11/5/2013 03:30 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 4/30/13. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MELVIN R. GOLDMAN (CA SBN 34097)
MGoldman@mofo.com
JAMES P. BENNETT (CA SBN 65179)
JBennett@mofo.com
PAUL FLUM (CA SBN 104424)
PaulFlum@mofo.com
RYAN HASSANEIN (CA SBN 221146)
RHassanein@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Attorneys for Defendants
MCKESSON CORPORATION
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14
15
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
16
17
18
Case No. CV-11-02782 SI
Plaintiff,
STIPULATION AND MODIFIED
[PROPOSED] PRETRIAL
PREPARATION ORDER
v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION, ROBERT
JAMES, AND GREG STEPHEN YONKO,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND MODIFIED [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
CASE NO. CV-11-02782 SI
sf-3276875
1
Plaintiff Commonwealth of Virginia and Defendant McKesson Corporation (collectively
2
the “Parties”), stipulate and request the following modification to the Pretrial Preparation Order:
3
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2013, the Court held a Case Management Conference, continued
4
the trial of this action from October 28, 2013 to November 18, 2013, and asked the Parties to
5
submit a revised scheduling order continuing the other case deadlines to conform to the new trial
6
date; and
7
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, the Parties state that the previous time
8
modifications in this action include the August 2, 2011 order rescheduling the initial case
9
management conference to September 22, 2011 (see Docket No. 15); the August 15, 2011
10
stipulation to modify the briefing schedule for Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (see Docket No. 17);
11
the September 14, 2011 order rescheduling the initial case management conference to October 14,
12
2011 (see Docket No. 22); the March 30, 2012 order rescheduling a case management conference
13
for April 6, 2012 (see Docket No. 36); the May 31, 2012 order continuing a case management
14
conference to August 24, 2012 (see Docket No. 41); the August 29, 2012 stipulation and
15
modification of the Pretrial Preparation Order (see Docket No. 45); the December 14, 2012 order
16
rescheduling the case management conference to December 18, 2012 (see Docket No. 49); and the
17
January 2, 2013 stipulation and modification of the Pretrial Preparation Order (see Docket No. 52).
18
NOW THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO COURT APPROVAL, THE PARTIES HEREBY
19
STIPULATE AND AGREE that the schedule set forth in the Court’s Modified Pretrial Preparation
20
Order, entered on January 2, 2013, should be modified by extending all relevant deadlines by
21
approximately three weeks, as follows:
22
FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: August 16, 2013 at 3 p.m.
23
NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF: June 17, 2013.
24
DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS: June 24, 2013; REBUTTAL: July 15, 2013; RESPONSE
25
TO REBUTTAL: July 26, 2013.
26
Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).
27
EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF: August 9, 2013.
28
STIPULATION AND MODIFIED [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
1
CASE NO. CV-11-02782 SI
sf-3276875
1
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by August 16, 2013; Opposition Due August
2
30, 2013; Reply Due September 6, 2013; and set for hearing September 20, 2013, or a date and
3
time convenient for the Court.
4
Defendants may file two motions for summary judgment: (1) an early motion on statute of
5
limitations issues, to be filed before and noticed for hearing after the February 27, 2013 Mediation;
6
and (2) a second motion after the close of discovery, to be briefed and heard on the schedule set
7
forth above.
8
9
5
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: November 4, 2013, or a date and time convenient for
the Court.
10
JURY TRIAL DATE: November 18, 2013, at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.
11
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
12
DATED: April 26, 2013
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MELVIN R. GOLDMAN
JAMES P. BENNETT
PAUL FLUM
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
MGoldman@mofo.com
JBennett@mofo.com
PaulFlum@mofo.com
13
14
15
16
17
18
By:
19
20
Attorneys for Defendant
MCKESSON CORPORATION
21
22
/s/ Paul Flum
PAUL FLUM
DATED: April 26, 2013
23
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
By:
24
25
26
27
28
/s/ Steve W. Berman
STEVE W. BERMAN
Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
Barbara A. Mahoney (pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
STIPULATION AND MODIFIED [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
2
CASE NO. CV-11-02782 SI
sf-3276875
1
Email: barbaram@hbsslaw.com
2
JEFF D. FRIEDMAN
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
Email: jefff@hbsslaw.com
3
4
5
Lelia P. Winget-Hernandez (pro hac vice)
Assistant Attorney General
VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Telephone: (804) 786-1584
Facsimile: (804) 786-0807
LWinget-Hernandez@oag.state.va.us
6
7
8
9
10
Counsel for the Commonwealth of Virginia
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND MODIFIED [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
3
CASE NO. CV-11-02782 SI
sf-3276875
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
3
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:______________________
11/30/13
4
________________________________
5
HON. SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND MODIFIED [PROPOSED] PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
4
CASE NO. CV-11-02782 SI
sf-3276875
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?