Sharma et al v. BMW of North America LLC

Filing 133

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 131 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Leave to Exceed Page Limit for Attachments Related to Discovery Letter Briefs filed by Monita Sharma, Eric Anderson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/7/16. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2016)

Download PDF
1 7 William A. Kershaw (State Bar No. 057486) Email: wkershaw@kcrlegal.com Stuart C. Talley (State Bar No. 180374) Email: stalley@kcrlegal.com Ian J. Barlow (State Bar No. 262213) Email: ibarlow@kcrlegal.com KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF LLP 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, California 95864 Telephone: (916) 448-9800 Facsimile: (916) 669-4499 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 15 MONITA SHARMA and ERIC ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 16 17 18 Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:13-cv-02274-MMC (KAW) STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR ATTACHMENTS RELATED TO DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEFS; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore 19 Defendant. 20 21 Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 7-12, Plaintiffs 22 Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant BMW of North America, LLC 23 (“BMW NA” or “Defendant”), by and through their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate as 24 follows: 25 STIPULATION 26 27 111 and 113), which were terminated after the parties “failed to propose a compromise in their 28 WHEREAS, the parties previously filed three joint discovery letter briefs (Dkt. Nos. 110, filings, . . . .” (Order Terminating Discovery Letter Briefs (Dkt. No. 114)); STIP. ADMIN. MOT. FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR ATTACHMENTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 WHEREAS, the parties have extensively met and conferred and exchanged final proposed 2 compromises pursuant to this Court’s Order Terminating Discovery Letter Briefs, but were 3 unable to reach agreements, including on discovery disputes regarding: (1) BMW NA’s further 4 responses and production of documents related to the design, manufacturing and testing for 5 putative class vehicles; and (2) the limited scope of BMW NA’s discovery responses; 6 7 WHEREAS, the parties have included proposed compromises in the respective sections of their discovery letter briefs pursuant to this Court’s Order Terminating Discovery Letter Briefs; 8 WHEREAS, as with the parties’ initial filings, two of the impending joint discovery letter 9 briefs involve disputes that relate to several interrogatories and requests for production of 10 documents and, for purposes of economy and judicial efficiency, the parties have structured their 11 letter briefs so that they separately address a single overarching issue as opposed to filing multiple 12 joint discovery letter briefs based on the same issue. For example, the parties’ discovery dispute 13 regarding “design and manufacturing” documents and responses encompasses twenty-two 14 separate document requests and eleven interrogatory responses, and the parties’ “discovery 15 scope” dispute encompasses twenty separate document requests and eleven interrogatory 16 responses;1 17 WHEREAS, the Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Westmore was revised on 18 December 22, 2015, after the parties filed their initial joint discovery letter briefs, and now 19 requires that “[a]ny attachments shall not exceed 12 pages.” (Standing Order for Magistrate 20 Judge Westmore ¶ 13); and 21 WHEREAS, the parties were able to present these overarching disputes in joint letters that 22 do not exceed five pages (as required by the Court’s Standing Order), because the parties are 23 required to attach the propounded discovery and applicable responses as exhibits to the joint 24 discovery letters (id.) and two of their joint letters relate to a single issue that involves several 25 discovery requests, they are unable to fully comply with the page limitation for attachments. 26 27 28 1 The parties’ joint discovery letter brief regarding BMW NA’s document retention policies relates to a single document request and was filed on February 29, 2016. (Dkt. No. 130.) 2 STIP. ADMIN. MOT. FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR ATTACHMENTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 111-1, 111-2, 111-4); 2 NOW, THEREFORE, undersigned counsel for the parties, having met and conferred and 3 good cause appearing, hereby stipulate and agree to extend the page limit for attachments to two 4 of their joint discovery letter briefs as follows: 5 6 7 8 1. Joint Discovery Letter Re: Manufacturing Documents and Responses: Exhibit C (33 pages); Exhibit D (16 pages); and Exhibit F (26 pages); and 2. Joint Discovery Letter Re: Limited Scope of Discovery Responses: Exhibit A (29 pages); Exhibit B (19 pages); and Exhibit D (16 pages). 9 10 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED. 11 12 Dated: March 1, 2016. KERSHAW, CUTTER, & RATINOFF, LLP 13 By: 14 15 16 17 18 /s/ William A. Kershaw WILLIAM A. KERSHAW Stuart C. Talley Ian J. Barlow 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, California 95864 Telephone: (916) 448-9800 Facsimile: (916) 669-4499 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19 20 21 Dated: March 1, 2016. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP 25 /s/ Eric J. Knapp ERIC J. KNAPP Troy M. Yoshino Aengus H. Carr 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 989-5900 Facsimile: (415) 989-0932 26 Attorneys for Defendant 22 23 24 27 28 By: Civil L.R. 5-1(i) Certification The filing attorney hereby certifies that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from each of the other signatories, in full accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i). 3 STIP. ADMIN. MOT. FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR ATTACHMENTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER 3 4 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 3/7/16 DATED: ______________________ _______________________________ Honorable Kandis A. Westmore UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIP. ADMIN. MOT. FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT FOR ATTACHMENTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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?