Brown et al v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

Filing 98

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 97 Stipulation for Administrative Relief to Reset Case Management Deadlines. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2012)

1 LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
Mark N. Todzo (State Bar No. 168389)
2 Howard Hirsch (State Bar No. 213209)
Lucas Williams (State Bar No. 264518)
3 503 Divisadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
6 [e-mail]
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ROSMINAH BROWN and
ERIC LOHELA
8
William J. Friedman (admitted pro hac vice)
9 [e-mail]
Samantha J. Choe (State Bar No. 252002)
10 [e-mail]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
11 One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
12 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
13
Attorneys for Defendant
14 THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.
15
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 ROSMINAH BROWN and ERIC LOHELA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
19
situated,
20
Plaintiffs,
21
vs.
22
THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
23
24

Case No. C 11-03082 LB
STIPULATED MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO RESET
CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (N.D.
Cal. Local Rules 7-11 & 6-2)

Defendant.

25
26
27
28

STIPULATED MOT. FOR ADMIN. RELIEF; [PROPOSED] ORDER – Case No. C 11-03082 LB

1
2
3

STIPULATED MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO RESET CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Rules 7-11 and 6-2, Plaintiffs Rosminah Brown and Eric Lohela

4 (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the
5 “Parties”) hereby request that the Court reset the case management deadlines in accordance with
6 the dates set forth herein.
7

On February 27, 2012, the Court entered the operative case management order (“CMO”)

8 which established all of the pertinent litigation deadlines through trial, including the briefing
9 schedule on Defendant’s first motion to dismiss. ECF No. 25. The CMO set a class certification
10 filing deadline of August 17, 2012. Id. On July 18, 2012, pursuant to stipulation of the Parties,
11 the Court vacated the class certification deadlines set by the CMO, and ordered that such deadlines
12 be subsequently rescheduled. ECF No. 57. On August 1, 2012, the Court denied Defendant’s first
13 motion to dismiss, and directed the parties to meet and confer regarding all case deadlines and
14 propose new dates. ECF No. 58. On August 9, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to certify an
15 interlocutory appeal and to stay the case pending appeal with a hearing date of September 20,
16 2012. ECF No. 60. On August 21, 2012, Plaintiffs’ filed their first amended complaint. ECF No.
17 68.
18

On September 13, 2012, Plaintiffs submitted a proposal for revised case management

19 deadlines along with the Parties’ joint case management statement in advance of the September
20 20, 2012 case management conference, whereas Defendant contended that all deadlines should be
21 stayed. ECF Nos. 77 & 77-1. On September 24, 2012, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to
22 certify an interlocutory appeal but declined to stay the case. ECF No. 79. However, the Court did
23 not rule on Plaintiffs’ proposed case management deadlines, as the Parties’ and the Court’s focus
24 at the hearing was on the motion to certify interlocutory appeal and stay case pending appeal. See
25 September 20, 2012 Transcript of Proceedings, at 23:20 -27:7.
26

On September 28, 2012, pursuant to stipulation of the Parties, the Court extended

27 Defendant’s deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint until October 8, 2012, with
28 Plaintiffs’ opposition to any motion to dismiss due November 12, 2012 and Defendant’s reply
-1STIPULATED MOT. FOR ADMIN. RELIEF; [PROPOSED] ORDER – Case No. C 11-03082 LB

1 brief due November 26, 2012. ECF No. 81. Defendant filed its second motion to dismiss and
2 motion to strike on October 9, 2012 and Plaintiffs filed their oppositions thereto on November 12,
3 2012 with a hearing date set for December 20, 2012. ECF Nos. 85-87. Finally, on November 20,
4 2012, Plaintiffs agreed to Defendant’s request for a brief extension of Defendant’s reply briefs in
5 support of its second motion to dismiss and motion to strike until November 30, 2012 at 12:00
6 p.m. Eastern Time/9:00 a.m. Pacific Time in order to accommodate Defendant’s counsel’s holiday
7 travel schedules.
8

Meanwhile, the Parties have had multiple discovery disputes. On July 2, 2012, the Parties

9 submitted a joint discovery dispute letter regarding Defendant’s obligation to respond to Plaintiffs’
10 first set of discovery requests while the first motion to dismiss was pending and the relevance of
11 three categories of information sought by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 52. On August 10, 2012, the Court
12 ruled that Defendant’s objection to discovery until disposition of its first Motion to Dismiss was
13 moot and that the categories of information sought by Plaintiff were relevant and declined to stay
14 discovery. ECF No. 64. On October 26, 2012, the Parties submitted four additional discovery
15 dispute letters related to Plaintiffs’ first and second sets of discovery requests as to Defendant’s
16 burden objections and the relevance of certain categories of information. ECF Nos. 88-91. The
17 Court has not ruled on those letters.
18

The operative CMO’s December 7, 2012 non-expert discovery cutoff is less than three

19 weeks away (ECF No. 25) and non-expert discovery has not been completed. Moreover, as
20 described above, the CMO’s class certification deadlines have already been vacated, while the
21 remaining deadlines are rapidly approaching. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court
22 adopt the case management schedule set forth below:
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2STIPULATED MOT. FOR ADMIN. RELIEF; [PROPOSED] ORDER – Case No. C 11-03082 LB

1
2

Event

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Defendant’s Reply Brief In
Support of Second Motion to
Dismiss

Current Deadline
Per 2/27/12 CMO

New Date Proposed
by Parties

11/26/2012

11/30/2012 at 12 p.m.
Eastern Time/9:00 a.m.
Pacific Time

(per 9/28/2012 Order)

Opening brief for class
certification

(vacated per 7/17/12 Order)

Opposition brief for class
certification

(vacated per 7/17/12 Order)

Reply brief for class
certification

(vacated per 7/17/12 Order)

Last day to hear motion for
class certification

(vacated per 7/17/12 Order)

8/17/2012
10/4/2012
10/31/2012
11/15/2012

4/15/2013
6/4/2013
7/09/2013
8/01/2013

Non-expert discovery
completion date

12/7/2012

8/8/2013

12/21/2012

8/22/2013

15

Expert disclosures required
by Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure

16

Rebuttal expert disclosures

1/11/2013

9/12/2013

17

Expert discovery completion
date

2/1/2013

10/3/2013

18

3/21/2013

11/01/2013

19

Last hearing date for
dispositive motions

20

Meet and confer re pretrial
filings

4/9/2013

11/8/2013

21

Pretrial filings due

4/18/2013

11/18/2013

22

Oppositions, Objections,
Exhibits, and Depo
Designations due

4/25/2013

11/25/2013

Final Pretrial Conference

5/9/2013, at 10:30
a.m.

12/9/2013, at 10:30
a.m.

26

Trial

5/20/2013, at 8:30
a.m.

12/16/2013, at 8:30
a.m.

27

Length of Trial

3 days

no change

12
13
14

23
24
25

28
-3STIPULATED MOT. FOR ADMIN. RELIEF; [PROPOSED] ORDER – Case No. C 11-03082 LB

The Parties’ proposed schedule generally pushes back the dates in the CMO by

1

2 approximately eight months. The Parties believe that this schedule is reasonable and necessary.
3 The parties request that the date for submission of the Defendant’s replies to Plaintiffs’ opposition
4 to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike as well as the non-expert discovery completion date
5 be considered separately if the Court has concerns with the other proposed case management
6 dates. For these reasons, the Parties respectfully request that the Court adopt the schedule set forth
7 above.
8 Dated: November 20, 2012

LEXINGTON LAW GROUP

9
By: /s/ Mark N. Todzo
Mark N. Todzo
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ROSMINAH BROWN and
ERIC LOHELA

10
11
12
13
14 Dated: November 20, 2012

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

15
By: /s/ William J. Friedman
William J. Friedman
Attorneys for Defendant
THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.

16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20

November 26, 2012
Dated: ___________________
The Honorable Laurel Beeler
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

STIPULATED MOT. FOR ADMIN. RELIEF; [PROPOSED] ORDER – Case No. C 11-03082 LB