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)
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?