Braden Partners, LP et al v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company
Filing
123
ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE re 120 Letter filed by Teijin Pharma USA, LLC, Braden Partners, LP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 19, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
BRADEN PARTNERS, LP, et al.,
Case No. 14-cv-01689-JST
Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER RE CASE SCHEDULE
v.
Re: ECF No. 120
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
12
13
14
The Court has received the letter dated March 17, 2016 from Darren Teshima, counsel for
15
Plaintiffs Braden Partners, LP and Teijin Pharma USA, LLC. ECF No. 120. The letter requests
16
that the Court adopt the case schedule attached to the letter.
17
Plaintiffs’ ex parte request for relief is denied. A party seeking administrative relief should
18
file a motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-11. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the Court does
19
not adjudicate by letter.
20
Rather than soliciting a motion, however, the Court now orders the parties to meet and
21
confer regarding an appropriate case schedule and to file a joint statement regarding the same,
22
either setting forth an agreed-upon schedule or making competing proposals. If any party
23
contends that further discovery is required, it must identify such discovery with specificity. For
24
example, a party contending that depositions are required should identify the name of the intended
25
deponent or deponents. If the parties submit competing schedules, the Court will endeavor to
26
choose, in all respects, the single proposal it concludes is most reasonable. See Michael Carrell &
27
Richard Bales, Considering Final Offer Arbitration to Resolve Public Sector Impasses in Times of
28
Concession Bargaining, 28 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 1, 20 (2013) (“In baseball arbitration . . .
1
the parties . . . have every incentive to make a reasonable proposal to the arbitrator because the
2
arbitrator will choose the more reasonable offer”).
3
The joint statement is due by March 25, 2016 and must not exceed ten pages. The Court is
4
aware that Defendant has filed a motion to stay the case. ECF No. 122. The joint statement due
5
on March 25 should not address that motion.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?