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