Guilbaud et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al

Filing 85

Order as Modified by Hon. Vince Chhabria denying #84 Motion to Shorten Time.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

MATTHEW RIGHETTI, State Bar No. 121012
JOHN GLUGOSKI, State Bar No. 191551
MICHAEL RIGHETTI, State Bar No. 258541
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94101
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Collective and
Putative Class

9

(Additional counsel on following page)

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

OLIVIA GUILBAUD, MARQUES LILLY,
AND MICHAEL WONG, and all others
similarly situated,

Lead Case
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04357-VC
Hon. Vince Chhabria

Plaintiffs,

15
16

vs.

17

SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION AND
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO.,
INC.,

18
19
20

Defendants.
_______________________________

Consolidated with
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02642-VC
Hon. Vince Chhabria

21
22

MICHAEL SMITH, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

23
24

vs.

25

SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT
COMPANY,
Defendant.

26

DENYING
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO HEAR MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER ON
SHORTENED TIME (LOCAL RULE 6-3)
AS MODIFIED
Ctrm: 4 – San Francisco Courthouse
Judge: Hon. Vince Chhabria

27
28

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO HEAR MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER ON SHORTENED TIME (LOCAL RULE 6-3)

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

RICHARD HOYER, State Bar No. 51931
RYAN HICKS, State Bar No. 260284
HOYER & ASSOCIATES
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]/ Facsimile: [phone]
Email:[e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
TODD M. SCHNEIDER, State Bar Number 158253
CAROLYN H. COTTRELL, State Bar Number 166977
NICOLE N. COON, State Bar Number 286283
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]/ Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO HEAR MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER ON SHORTENED TIME (LOCAL RULE 6-3)

1
2
3

The Court, having considered the parties’ papers, the entire record in this action, and the
arguments of counsel, and good appearing therefore,
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS:

4
Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Hear Motion for Protective Order on Shortened
5
6

Time is GRANTED.

7
8

Defendant shall file its opposition by _________________________.

9
10

Plaintiffs shall file their reply by __________________________.

11
12
The

hearing

on

Plaintiffs’

Motion

for

Protective

shall

take

place

on

13
_________________________ at ___________ in Courtroom 4.

IST

SD
IT IS SO ORDERED RICT
TE

UNIT
ED

Dated: October 10
______________, 2014

________________________________
Hon. Vince Chhabria
a
United States DistricteCourt, br ia Cal.
nc Chh N.D.
u d g e Vi
J

H

ER

LI

RT

20

FO

NO

19

Plaintiffs should be prepared
to mail notice the week
following the hearing.

D
DENIE

C

R NIA

17
18

TA

RT
U
O

16

S

15

21
22

A

14

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

23
24
25
26
27
28

3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO HEAR MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER ON SHORTENED TIME (LOCAL RULE 6-3)