Barnes et al v. The Hershey Company

Filing 164

ORDER, Reset Deadlines as to 150 MOTION for Summary Judgment ., granting 162 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REVISING BRIEFING SCHEDULE REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CONTINUING OCTOBER 10 , 2014 HEARING DATE TO OCTOBER 17, 2014 filed by The Hershey Company. Responses due by 9/3/2014. Replies due by 9/16/2014. Motion Hearing reset for 10/17/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 8/20/2014. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

DARYL S. LANDY, State Bar No. 136288
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
MICHAEL J. PUMA (admitted pro hac vice)
CHRISTOPHER D. HAVENER (admitted pro hac vice)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
THE HERSHEY COMPANY

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17

GREGORY P. BARNES, et al.,

18

Plaintiffs,

19
20
21
22

vs.
THE HERSHEY COMPANY,
Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-01334-CRB
STIPULATION AND
ORDER REVISING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE REGARDING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND CONTINUING
OCTOBER 10, 2014 HEARING DATE TO
OCTOBER 17, 2014

23
24

Defendant The Hershey Company (“Hershey”) and Plaintiffs, by and through their

25

respective counsel, jointly request an order revising the parties’ briefing schedule in connection

26

with Hershey’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-

27

12 of the Northern District of California, as follows:

28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REVISING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
CONTINUING HEARING DATE
CASE NO.: 3:12-CV-01334-CRB (NC)

1

WHEREAS on August 12, 2014, Hershey filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

2

(the “Motion”) and supporting papers for the Motion (ECF 150-157). Hershey noticed the

3

Motion for hearing for September 26, 2014;

4

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a) and (c), the default briefing schedule for the

5

Motion was as follows: Plaintiffs were to file their Opposition to the Motion no later than August

6

26, 2014; Hershey was to file its Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion no later than

7

September 2, 2014;

8
9

WHEREAS the Court set a new hearing date of October 10, 2014 for the Motion on
August 18, 2014;

10

WHEREAS counsel for Plaintiffs is unavailable on October 10, 2014 due to prior

11

obligations, but will be available on October 17, 2014, which is the Honorable Charles R.

12

Breyer’s next Civil Law & Motion date;

13
14
15

WHEREAS Hershey has no objection to continuing the October 10, 2014 hearing to
October 17, 2014 at a time of the Court’s choosing;
WHEREAS, having met and conferred, the parties also agree that the default briefing

16

schedule for the Motion should be revised in light of counsel’s schedules and because the

17

modification will not prejudice the Court since the Motion will be fully briefed well in advance of

18

the new hearing date and will provide the Court more time to prepare for the hearing than under

19

the default briefing schedule and originally scheduled hearing date;

20

WHEREAS the parties previously submitted three stipulated requests to revise briefing

21

schedules or otherwise modify deadlines to submit pleadings. The first stipulation was in

22

connection with Hershey’s Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF 10), which was granted by the Court.

23

ECF 22-23. The second stipulation related to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF 57), which was

24

also granted by the Court. ECF 60-61. The parties also requested a six-day extension to submit a

25

joint report on discovery disputes to the court, (ECF 134), which the court granted in part,

26

providing an additional five days to submit the report, (ECF 135);

27

WHEREAS the parties also requested that a hearing regarding a joint discovery dispute

28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REVISING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
CONTINUING HEARING DATE
CASE NO.: 3:12-CV-01334-CRB (NC)

1

letter be postponed one week because of a prior commitment by Hershey, (ECF 127); a request

2

that the court granted, (ECF 129);

3
4
5

WHEREAS the parties do not seek this revision for the purpose of delay. The limited
modification to the briefing schedule will not have an effect on any other pre-trial and trial dates.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED pursuant to Local Rule 6-2 by and between the parties

6

hereto, through their respective attorneys of record, that Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion is

7

due on or before September 3, 2014 and Hershey’s Reply is due on or before September 16, 2014;

8

and the hearing date on the Motion be continued to October 17, 2014, at a time of the Court’s

9

choosing.

10

Pursuant to L.R. 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I, Christopher D. Havener, attest that

11

concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I

12

declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing

13

is true and correct. Executed this 19th day of August, 2014.

14

/s/ Christopher D. Havener
Christopher D. Havener

15
16

Dated: August 19, 2014

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

17
By: /s/ Christopher D. Havener
Christopher D. Havener

18
19

Attorneys for Defendant
THE HERSHEY COMPANY

20
21

Dated: August 19, 2014

THE BRANDI LAW FIRM

22
By: /s/ Brian J. Malloy
Brian J. Malloy

23
24

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REVISING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
CONTINUING HEARING DATE
CASE NO.: 3:12-CV-01334-CRB (NC)

1

ORDER

2
3

Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation and for good cause showing, Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

4

Hershey’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment shall be due on or before September 3, 2014,

5

Hershey’s Reply in support of its Motion shall be due on or before September 16, 2014, and the

6

Court will continue the hearing date on the Motion, and set a new hearing for October 17, 2014 at

By:

ERED

Honorable CharlesBreyer Breyer
. R.
harles R
Judge C
United States District Judge
RT

FO

NO

11

O ORD

IT IS S

R NIA

, 2014

H

ER

LI

Dated: August

12

A

10

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

9

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
S

8

in Courtroom 6.

UNIT
ED

7

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REVISING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
CONTINUING HEARING DATE
CASE NO.: 3:12-CV-01334-CRB (NC)