Fenerjian v. Nong Shim Company, Ltd et al

Filing 573

ORDER granting 572 Stipulation. Reply deadlines continued toy 6/7/2017 re: 541 , 548 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/24/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2017)

Download PDF
1 [SUBMITTING COUNSEL SHOWN ON SIGNATURE PAGES] 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 11 San Francisco, California 94111 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 8 12 13 IN RE KOREAN RAMEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No. 3:13-cv-04115-WHO STIPULATION AND ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR FILING SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY PAPERS 14 15 16 17 18 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO All Actions 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATED ORDER RE: TIME TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY PAPERS CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04115-WHO 1 2 3 WHEREAS, the parties’ counsel have met and conferred about the matters addressed in this Stipulation; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Case Management Order (Dkt 528), plaintiffs’ deadline to 4 file their papers in Opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment was May 8, 2017; 5 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2017, plaintiffs filed errata to their prior filings that included a 6 revised brief, over 250 pages of revised exhibits and an additional declaration by an expert 7 witness; 8 9 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 11 San Francisco, California 94111 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 10 WHEREAS, plaintiffs have informed defendants that they anticipate filing an additional document, to be Exhibit 100 to the Declaration of Stephanie Cho, which exhibit plaintiffs state that they have served on defendants on May 19, 2017; WHEREAS, defendants state that they have been prejudiced, in the preparation of their 12 Reply papers in support of their motions for summary judgment, by plaintiffs’ untimely and 13 changed filings of plaintiffs’ Opposition papers; 14 WHEREAS, plaintiffs contend that defendants suffered no material prejudice (as 15 plaintiffs’ errata mainly consisted of missing citations or exhibits to the Cho declaration that were 16 easily identifiable because the bates numbers or transcript citations were listed in the brief, as 17 well as a missing two-page expert declaration that was provided to defendants on May 11, 2017), 18 but agree to the extension stipulated to herein upon defendants’ agreement to produce for 19 deposition any expert whose declaration defendants submit in support of their Reply briefs, 20 within seven days after filing; and 21 22 23 WHEREAS, there have been no previously stipulated or ordered modifications of the deadline addressed herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE 24 UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL, HEREBY STIPULATE TO AN ORDER OF THE COURT AS 25 FOLLOWS: 26 27 The deadline for defendants’ Reply papers in support of their motions for summary judgment shall be extended from the original deadline of June 1, 2017 (Dkt 528) to an extended 28 -1- STIPULATION RE: TIME TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY PAPERS CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04115-WHO 1 deadline of June 7, 2017. The deadline for plaintiffs to take the deposition of any expert whose 2 declaration defendants submit in support of their Reply briefs shall be June 14, 2017. 3 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 4 5 Dated: May 23, 2017 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 6 7 8 9 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 11 San Francisco, California 94111 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 10 12 13 14 By: /s/ Mark C. Dosker Mark C. Dosker Joseph P. Grasser Kate E. Kim (admitted pro hac vice) 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 954-0200 E-mail: mark.dosker@squirepb.com joseph.grasser@squirepb.com kate.kim@squirepb.com Attorneys for Defendants NONGSHIM CO. LTD. and NONGSHIM AMERICA, INC. 15 16 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 17 By: /s/ Rachel S. Brass__________ 18 Rachel S. Brass Minae Yu 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 Facsimile: (415) 393-8206 E-Mail: rbrass@gibsondunn.com myu@gibsondunn.com 19 20 21 22 23 24 Attorneys for Defendants OTTOGI AMERICA, INC. and OTTOGI CO., LTD. 25 26 27 28 -2- STIPULATION RE: TIME TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY PAPERS CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04115-WHO 1 Dated: May 23, 2017 GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 2 3 By: 4 Lee Albert Greg Linkh 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, New York 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com 5 6 7 /s/ Greg Linkh_______________ 8 HAUSFELD LLP Christopher L. Lebsock Stephanie Y. Cho 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1949 E-mail: clebsock@hausfeldllp.com 9 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 11 San Francisco, California 94111 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 10 12 13 Lead Counsel for the DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS 14 15 Dated: May 23, 2017 BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER LLP 16 17 By: 18 Daniel E. Birkhaeuser 2125 Oak Grove Road Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Telephone: (925) 945-0200 19 /s/ Daniel E. Birkhaeuser___ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP Mark Kindall 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6293 E-mail: mkindall@ikrlaw.com Lead Counsel for the INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS 27 28 -3- STIPULATION RE: TIME TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY PAPERS CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04115-WHO 1 ORDER 2 The deadline for defendants’ Reply papers in support of their motions for summary 3 judgment is hereby extended from the original deadline of June 1, 2017 (Dkt 528) to an extended 4 deadline of June 7, 2017. The deadline for plaintiffs to take the deposition of any expert whose 5 declaration defendants submit in support of their Reply papers shall be June 14, 2017. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 24, 2017 ______________________________ The Honorable William H. Orrick III United States District Judge 8 9 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 11 San Francisco, California 94111 SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- STIPULATION RE: TIME TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT REPLY PAPERS CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04115-WHO

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?