Flores et al v. State Farm General Insurance Company

Filing 40

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 39 Stipulation to revise the Court's Scheduling Order.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2014)

1 STEPHEN M. HAYES (SBN 83583)
STEPHEN P. ELLINGSON (SBN 136505)
2 CHERIE M. SUTHERLAND (SBN 217992)
HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON & McLAY, LLP
3 203 Redwood Shores Pkwy., Ste. 480
Redwood City, California 94065
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.637.8071
5 Attorneys for Defendant
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
6
J. EDWARD KERLEY (SBN 175695)
7 DYLAN L. SCHAFFER (SBN 153612)
HEREFORD KERLEY LLP
8 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 500
Oakland, California 94612
9 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 510.228-0350
10
Attorney for Plaintiffs
11 JOSE and YADIRA FLORES dba LA ROSA MARKET
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15 JOSE FLORES, an individual, and
YADIRA FLORES, an individual, dba
16 LA ROSA MARKET,

CASE NO. CV 13-05348 VC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO REVISE THE COURT’S
SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiffs,

17
v.

18

19 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Illinois Company, and DOES
20 1through 15,
Defendants.

21
22

Plaintiffs and State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”), by and through their

23

24 respective counsel, hereby stipulate to revise the Court’s February 18, 2014 Pretrial Schedule (Dkt
25 18) as follows:
I.
26
RECITALS
27 1.

The parties are in the process of completing fact discovery, including depositions. The

28 parties also have been working together to secure discovery from third parties who are significant
565687

-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REVISE THE COURT’S
SCHEDULING ORDER - CASE NO. CV 13-05348 VC

1 witnesses. Despite the parties’ cooperation in discovery, the parties do not anticipate being able to
2 complete depositions by the current fact discovery deadline of January 16, 2015.
2.

3

The parties are engaged in active settlement discussions. The parties would like to

4 avoid incurring additional costs related to fact and expert discovery while discussing settlement.
5 Additionally, incurring significant additional costs, e.g. for experts, could be an impediment to
6 settlement.
3.

7

The parties have initiated the Court’s discovery dispute resolution process pursuant to

8 Paragraph 9 (Discovery) of the Court’s Standing Order. The parties have submitted three joint letters
9 to the Court addressing several discovery issues. (Dkt 33, 45 & 35.) The outcome of these discovery
10 disputes may impact the remaining depositions and additional discovery.
4.

11

The parties previously stipulated to an order continuing the fact and expert discovery

12 deadlines. The Court entered its order on that stipulation on October 2, 2014 (Dkt 32). Significant
13 developments since then have included the recent settlement discussions, the unavailability of key
14 witnesses for deposition for different reasons and the discovery disputes currently pending before the
15 Court.
5.

16

For these reasons, the parties have agreed to stipulate to a proposed order extending

17 the deadline for fact discovery, and the deadlines for expert disclosure, rebuttal disclosure and expert
18 discovery, to enable the parties to fully explore the potential for settlement without incurring undue
19 additional burden and expense.
6.

20

The parties are mindful of the other pretrial deadlines in the current Pretrial Schedule,

21 and do not believe that the stipulated fact and expert discovery extensions will affect their ability to
22 comply with those deadlines.
7.

23

The parties do not seek to continue any deadlines other than the deadlines for fact

24 discovery, expert disclosure, rebuttal disclosure and expert discovery. The parties do not seek to
25 continue the trial date or the pretrial conference date. However, the parties are agreeable to doing so
26 if the Court prefers to continue those dates in addition to the discovery and expert discovery
27 deadlines addressed in this stipulation.
28
565687

-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REVISE THE COURT’S
SCHEDULING ORDER - CASE NO. CV 13-05348 VC

1

II.
STIPULATION

2
3

The parties hereby stipulate to the following revisions to the court’s Pretrial Schedule:

4

1. Discovery Cutoff

February 13, 2015
(currently January 16, 2015)

2. Expert Disclosure

February 27, 2015
(currently January 30, 2015)

3. Expert Rebuttal

March 13, 2015
(currently February 13, 2015)

4. Expert Discovery Cutoff

March 20, 2015
(currently February 27, 2015)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Dated: December 10, 2014

HEREFORD KERLEY, LLP

13
14
By
15
16
17

/S/ Dylan L. Schaffer
J. EDWARD KERLEY
DYLAN L. SCHAFFER
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JOSE and YADIRA FLORES dba LA ROSA
MARKET

18
19
Dated: December 10, 2014

HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON & McLAY, LLP

20
21

By

22
23
24

/S/ Stephen P. Ellingson
STEPHEN M. HAYES
STEPHEN P. ELLINGSON
CHERIE M. SUTHERLAND
Attorneys for Defendant
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY

25
26
27
28
565687

-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REVISE THE COURT’S
SCHEDULING ORDER - CASE NO. CV 13-05348 VC

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Pretrial Schedule is revised as follows:

3

1. Discovery Cutoff

February 13, 2015
(currently January 16, 2015)

2. Expert Disclosure

February 27, 2015
(currently January 30, 2015)

3. Expert Rebuttal

March 13, 2015
(currently February 13, 2015)

4. Expert Discovery Cutoff

March 20, 2015
(currently February 27, 2015)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

The remaining dates and deadlines set forth in the Civil Minutes dated February 18, 2014 (Dkt
18) remain unchanged.

14
15 Dated:

December 12

, 2014
HONORABLE VINCE CHHABRIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
565687

-4STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REVISE THE COURT’S
SCHEDULING ORDER - CASE NO. CV 13-05348 VC