Burgoyne v. Kronenberger et al

Filing 124

Modified STIPULATION AND ORDER re 123 STIPULATION re 109 Second MOTION to Compel RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S DOCUMENT SUBPOENA FROM WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 106 First MOTION to Compel FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANTS KARL KRONENBERGER AND KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD LLP. Motion Hearing set for 4/9/2013 09:30 AM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 3/18/2013. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2013)

1
2
3
4

Rory C. Quintana (SBN 258747)
The Law Offices of Rory C. Quintana
201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

5
Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry M. Burgoyne, III
6
7
8
9
10

ANDERIES & GOMES LLP
Shane K. Anderies (SBN 215415)
Allan J. Gomes (SBN 225810)
S. Christine Young (SBN 253964)
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 888
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

11
12

Attorneys for Defendants Karl Kronenberger and
Kronenberger Rosenfeld LLP

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
HENRY M. BURGOYNE, III

CASE NO. 3:11-cv-06376 EDL

17
Plaintiff,

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
CHANGING TIME AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM
DEFENDANTS KARL KRONENBERGER
AND KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD LLP

18
v.
19
20
21
22

KARL M. KRONENBERGER, an individual;
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD LLP, a
California limited liability partnership; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

AS MODIFIED

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 3:11-cv-06376-EDL

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
CHANGING TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-7(b), 6-1(b), and 6-2(a), the parties agree to continue the

2

hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Defendants Karl

3

Kronenberger and Kronenberger Rosenfeld LLP (“Plaintiff’s Motion”).

4

Plaintiff’s Motion is currently set for April 2, 2013 and the parties agree to continue the hearing

5

to April 9, 2013.

The hearing on

6

The parties request the hearing date be continued because Plaintiff’s counsel and defense

7

counsel are both unavailable to attend the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion on April 2, 2013, due to

8

scheduling conflicts. The hearing date for Plaintiff’s Motion was originally set for March 26,

9

2013 but on March 13, 2013, the Court rescheduled the hearing for April 2, 2013. The requested

10
11
12

time modification will have no effect on the schedule for the case.
Based on the forgoing, the parties respectfully request the Court enter an order extending
the hearing date on Plaintiff’s Motion, as agreed to by the parties.

13
14

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

15
16

Dated: March 15, 2013

THE LAW OFFICES OF RORY C. QUINTANA

17
By:___s/Rory C. Quintana_______________
Rory C. Quintana
Attorney for Plaintiff Henry M. Burgoyne, III

18
19
20
21
22

Dated: March 15, 2013

ANDERIES & GOMES LLP

23
By:__/s/ Shane K. Anderies________________
Shane K. Anderies
Attorney for Defendants Karl Kronenberger and
Kronenberger Rosenfeld LLP

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 3:11-cv-06376-EDL

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
CHANGING TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

1
2
3

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45 §X(B), I attest under penalty of
perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from its signatory.

4
Respectfully submitted,

5
6

Dated: March 15, 2013
By:__/s/ Shane K. Anderies________________
Shane K. Anderies
Attorney for Defendants Karl
Kronenberger and Kronenberger
Rosenfeld LLP

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 3:11-cv-06376-EDL

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
CHANGING TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

1

The Court having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing

2

therefore, orders the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to

3

Defendants Karl Kronenberger and Kronenberger Rosenfeld LLP to be continued to April 9,

4

2013. at 9:30 a.m.

S

ER

H

11

lizabet
Judge E

12

FO

RT

10

porte

h D. La

NO

9

R NIA

D
RDERE
S SO O IED
UNITED STATES I
IT MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DIF
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AS MO

LI

8

UNIT
ED

March 18, 2013
Dated:_____________________________

RT
U
O

6
7

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

5

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 3:11-cv-06376-EDL

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
CHANGING TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL