Cornell v. Columbus McKinnon Corporation et al

Filing 48

ORDER, Motions terminated: 43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER OF THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DATES filed by YALE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC., Autoquip Corpoation, Columbus McKinnon Corporation. Further Case Mana gement Conference set for 7/25/2014 03:00 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Selection set for 6/22/2015 08:30 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston. Jury Trial set for 6/22/2015 08:30 AM before Hon. Susan Illston. Motion Hearing set for 3/20/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 7/21/14. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2014)

4

PETER W. ALFERT, SBN 83139
KAREN H. KAHN, SBN 98404
MARK T. BALLER, SBN 261331
HINTON ALFERT & KAHN LLP
200 Pringle Ave., Suite 450
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff

1
2
3

6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BRIAN CORNELL,
Plaintiffs,

11
v.

12
13
14

Case No. 313-CV-02188-JCS
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES
TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL
RELATED DATES; [PROPOSED]
ORDER

COLUMBUS McKINNON CORPORATION,
AUTOQUIP CORPORATION, YALE
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC., and DOES
1-200, inclusive,

15
Defendants.

16

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between PLAINTIFF BRIAN CORNELL (“Plaintiff”)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

through his counsel of record, HINTON ALFERT & KAHN, and DEFENDANTS COLUMBUS
MCKINNON CORPORATION (“CMCO”), AUTOQUIP CORPORATION (“Autoquip”), AND
YALE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC. (“Yale”) (collectively “Defendants”), by and through
their counsel of record, HAIGHT, BROWN & BONESTEEL, as follows:
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
-1STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES IN TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

GOOD CAUSE FOR THE STIPULATION
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2014, the Court issued the following Scheduling Order:

3

Fact Discovery Cutoff

August 29, 2014

4

Expert Designation Deadline

September 19, 2014

5

Rebuttal Expert Designation

October 10, 2014

6

Expert Discovery Cutoff

November 13, 2014

7

Dispositive Motion Deadline

November 17, 2014

8

Hearing on Dispositive Motion(s)

December 19, 2014

9

Pretrial Conference

March 3, 2015

Trial

March 16, 2015

10
11

WHEREAS, on May 29, 2014, by stipulation of the parties, plaintiff filed a First Amended

12

Complaint naming Yale as a defendant in this action. There were a series of meet and confer

13

discussions between the parties with regard to which company or companies should be joined as

14

defendants in the case based on their role in the chain of distribution of the equipment on which

15

plaintiff alleges he was injured. Because the date of manufacture of the subject equipment was

16

allegedly twenty-three years ago, the corporate history has been difficult to piece together. The

17

parties ultimately stipulated to adding Yale as a defendant;

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WHERAS, on June 18, 2014, plaintiff served the First Amended Complaint, as well as a
Notice and Acknowledge of Receipt, on Yale’s counsel of record;
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, Yale’s counsel of record executed and returned the Notice
of Acknowledgement and Receipt to plaintiff’s counsel;
WHEREAS, the parties have conducted significant discovery to date, including:
a. Requests for Production, Set 1, propounded on CMCO (served December 17, 2013)
b. Requests for Production, Set 1, propounded on Autoquip (served December 17,
2013)
c. Requests for Production, Set 2, propounded on CMCO (served January 2, 2014)
d. Requests for Production, Set 3, propounded on CMCO (served March 2014)
e. Requests for Production, Set 2, propounded on Autoquip (served March 2014)
f. Requests for Admission, Set 1, propounded on CMCO (served March 2014)
g. Requests for Admission, Set 1, propounded on Autoquip (served March 2014)
h. Requests for Production, Set 4, propounded on CMCO (served March 2014)
i. Requests for Production, Set 3, propounded on Autoquip (served March 2014)
-2STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES IN TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3
4

j.
k.
l.
m.
n.

Requests for Admission, Set 2, propounded on CMCO (served March 2014)
Requests for Admission, Set 2, propounded on Autoquip (served March 2014)
A 30(b)(6) of a CMCO PMQ taken on June 12, 2014
A joint site inspection of the Federal Express hub at Oakland International Airport;
Deposition of Brian Cornell;

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the parties’ good faith effort to complete discovery,

5

significant discovery still remains to be completed, especially in light of the recent addition of Yale

6

as a party to the litigation;

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

WHEREAS, outstanding discovery to date includes:
a.
b.
c.
d.
d.

Special Interrogatories, Set 1, propounded on CMCO (served June 2014)
Special Interrogatories, Set 1, propounded on Autoquip (served June 2014)
Additional subpoena(s) for documents to Federal Express (served June 2014);
A 30(b)(6) deposition of Federal Express has been noticed for July 2014;
A 30(b)(6) deposition of a Autoquip PMQ has been set for August 2014

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has prepared and intends to serve discovery on defendant Yale;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff awaits the production of documents pursuant to subpoena that was
served on Yale prior to Yale being a named and represented party to this action;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff will notice, by subpoena to Federal Express, a second site inspection
at the FedEx facility where plaintiff worked, as well as at an additional location where plaintiff
reports modified lift equipment is being used. Yale will be able to attend this inspection. This
second site inspection is necessary because the initial site inspection did not include an inspection
the truck trailer from which plaintiff was offloading freight at the time of the incident. Plaintiff has
waited to notice this second site inspection until Autoquipproduced design drawings of the lift
equipment on which plaintiff alleges he was injured. Defendant Autoquip produced design
drawings of lifting equipment, bearing either Autoquip or American Lifts labels. Design drawings
depicting the backing plate (also known as a “truck bumper”) have not been produced as the
designer and manufacturer backing plate has not yet been identified. Autoquip states that the
design drawings that were produced constituted protected proprietary information. The parties
cooperated in good faith to Stipulate to a Protective Order prior to the production of these
documents. The Protective Order was filed with this Court on May 29, 2014, and defendant
Autoquip served the requested design drawings the same day. Plaintiff is now ready to notice the

28
-3STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES IN TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

second site inspection.
WHEREAS, based upon the 30(b)(6) deposition of CMCO, plaintiff is now preparing new

3

discovery to propound on CMCO, Autoquip, and Yale, which will include revised definitions of

4

the equipment on which plaintiff claims he was injured. Defendants CMCO and Autoquip

5

objected to plaintiff’s prior sets of discovery based on Plaintiff’s failure to specifically and

6

consistently identify the lift equipment in question. Plaintiff contends that their prior discovery

7

requests sufficiently described the equipment because they used product and/or serial numbers

8

which appeared on documents produced by FedEx and by CMCO. The parties continue to meet

9

and confer regarding Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s discovery.

10
11
12
13
14

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding discovery that still remains to be
completed in order to prepare for trial, including:
a. The second FedEx site inspection;
b. Deposition of Federal Express’ 30(b)(6) witness(es);
c. Depositions of additional (30)(b)(6) witnesses of Defendants;
d. Additional written discovery, including but not limited to “follow up” discovery to
Plaintiff’s prior written discovery that CMCO and Autoquip objected to based as
described above

15
WHEREAS, Plaintiff is now scheduling a surgical procedure in September to amputate his
16
left foot, there will need to be additional discovery regarding Plaintiff’s medical condition.
17
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel HINTON ALFERT & KAHN is set for trial in Solano
18
County Superior Court on August 8, 2014 in a 7-plaintiff, complex, toxic tort case with an
19
estimated trial length of 20 – 30 days, and all three attorneys at HINTON ALFERT & KAHN are
20
currently completing fact and expert discovery in that case. There are 40 retained and non-retained
21
expert witness depositions in that case, 17 of which have been completed and 23 of which are
22
pending. This case was filed on August 25, 2009. The five-year deadline to complete trial of the
23
matter was extended to October 6, 2014 due to surgery of defense counsel.
24
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the parties good faith meet and confer efforts regarding
25
discovery and cooperative efforts to diligently prepare this case for trial, it will not be possible for
26
the parties to complete discovery under the Court’s current Trial Preparation Order.
27
WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding reasonable deadlines to complete
28
-4STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES IN TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

trial preparation in this action and they have agreed that an additional 90 days as to each deadline

2

will allow the parties to complete the necessary discovery and prepare for trial.

3

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding completion of ADR and have

4

agreed that an additional 120 days from the current June 2014 deadline will allow the parties to

5

participate in meaningful settlement discussions.

6

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties that the

7

trial date of March 16, 2015 be continued to June 16, 2015 or any day thereafter that is convenient

8

for the Court’s calendar, and that the following schedule govern the remainder of this litigation:

9

///

10

///

11

///

12

///

13

///

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-5STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES IN TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

MATTER

CURRENT DEADLINE

PROPOSED DEADLINE

2

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT

7/25/14 at 3:00 p.m

7/25/14 at 3:00 p.m

3

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF 8/29/14

4

ADR COMPLETION DATE

JUNE 2014

OCTOBER 2014

5

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS
REBUTTAL EXPERT
DESIGNATION

9/19/14

12/19/14

10/10/14

1/12/15

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF

11/13/14

2/12/15

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Filed by 11/17/14

File by 2/16/15

Opp. Due 12/1/14

Opp. Due 3/2/15

Reply Due 12/8/14

Reply Due. 3/9/15

Heard by 12/19/14

Heard by 3/20/15

3/3/15 at 3:30 PM

June 2015

6/9/15 @3:30 pm

3/16/15 at 8:30 AM

June 2015

6/22/15 @8:30am

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE
TRIAL DATE
(ESTIMATED 10 DAYS)

11/28/14

14
15

HINTON ALFERT & KAHN

Date:

16
By:

17
18
19
20

==================LëL=j~êâ=qK=_~ääÉê
PETER W. ALFERT
KAREN H. KAHN
MARK T. BALLER
Attorneys for plaintiff
HAIGHT, BROWN & BONESTEEL

Date:

21
By:

22
23
24
25
26
27

/s/ Krsto Mijanovic
KRSTO MIJANOVIC
CRISTINA GUIDO
Attorneys for Defendants

Date:
By:

7/21/14
SUSAN ILLSTON
Senior District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California

28
-6STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES IN TRIAL PREPARATION ORDER
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
4 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

)
)
)

ss.:

5 BRIAN CORNELL v. COLUMBUS McKINNON CORPORATION; AMERICAN LIFTS
C 13-02188 SI
6
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age
7 of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 South Flower Street,
Forty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071.
8
On July 15, 2014, I served the within document(s) described as:
9
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL
10 RELATED DATES
11

on the interested parties in this action as stated below:

12

Peter W. Alfert
Karen J. Kahn
Mark T. Baller
HINTON ALFERT & KAHN LLP
200 Pringle Avenue, Suite 450
Walnut Creek, California 94596

13
14
15

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

16
17
18

20

(CM/ECF) Pursuant to the United States District Court Procedural Rules for
Electronic Case Filing and the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing Rules, I
electronically served the above-listed documents on the parties shown above for the
above-entitled case, as listed above.

21

Executed on July 15, 2014, at Los Angeles, California.

X
19

I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a member of
the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made and that the foregoing is true
23 and correct.
22

24

Julie C. Mentesana
(Type or print name)

25

/s/Julie C. Mentesana
(Signature)

26
27
28
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO
LAW OFFICES
HAIGHT, BROWN &
BONESTEEL, L.L.P.
Los Angeles

CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED
CK06-0000001
9881008.1

7

DATES

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
4 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

)
)
)

ss.:

5 BRIAN CORNELL v. COLUMBUS McKINNON CORPORATION; AUTOQUIP
CORPORATION
6 3:13-cv-02188 SI
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age
of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 South Flower Street,
8 Forty-Fifth Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071.
7

On July 15, 2014, I served the within document(s) described as:

9
10

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL
RELATED DATES

11
on the interested parties in this action as stated below:
12
Scott H.Z. Sumner
SUMNERLAW
1299 Newell Hill Place, Suite 202
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

13
14

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

15
16
17
X
18
19

(ELECTRONIC MEANS) I caused such document(s) to be Electronically Served
through E-Mail for the above-entitled matter. This service complies with Code of
Civil Procedure §1010. The file transmission was reported as complete and a copy
of the “Sent” page will be maintained with the file copy of the document(s) in our
office.

20
Executed on July 15, 2014, at Los Angeles, California.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a member of
22 the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made and that the foregoing is true
and correct.
23
Julie C. Mentesana
(Type or print name)

24
25

/s/ Julie C. Mentesana
(Signature)

26
27
28
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO
LAW OFFICES
HAIGHT, BROWN &
BONESTEEL, L.L.P.
Los Angeles

CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED
CK06-0000001
9881008.1

8

DATES