Doublevision Entertainment, LLC v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company et al

Filing 104

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE SCOPE OF EXPERTS PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY 103 .(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 DOUBLEVISION ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
a Tennessee limited liability company, as
12 assignee of Commercial Escrow Services, Inc.,
a California corporation, and Antoinette
13 Hardstone, an individual,
14
15

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:14-cv-02848-WHA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE SCOPE OF EXPERTS’
PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY

v.

16 NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY; a New York corporation; THE
17 NAVIGATORS GROUP, INC., a New York
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
18 inclusive,
19

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCOPE OF EXPERTS’
PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY

1

With respect to the parties’ proffered experts, the parties, by and through their respective

2 counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
3

WHEREAS, the parties simultaneously designated their respective experts on March 31, 2015

4 and exchanged Rule 26 expert reports on that date, rather than engaging in the sequential exchange
5 contemplated by Paragraph 5 the Case Management Order (“CMO”) entered by the Court in this
6 matter [Dkt. No. 22];
7

WHEREAS, two of the plaintiff’s designated experts (Messrs. Stephen Prater and Mark

8 Fredkin), and the defendant’s expert (Steven Crane), offer opposing opinions on largely overlapping
9 issues;
10

WHEREAS, Paragraph 7 of the CMO allows the parties, by stipulation, to relax the

11 requirements of the CMO regarding the scope of permissible opinion testimony offered by the parties’
12 retained experts,
13

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate that Messrs. Prater and Fredkin will be permitted to

14 rebut the opinions offered by Mr. Crane, and Mr. Crane will be permitted to rebut the opinions offered
15 by Messrs. Prater and Fredkin, without need of written rebuttal reports, and the parties further agree
16 that neither party will submit written rebuttal reports.
17

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

18
19 Dated: April 14, 2015

ROSENFELD, MEYER & SUSMAN LLP

20
21
22
23

By: /s/ Ryan M. Lapine
Ryan M. Lapine
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DOUBLEVISION ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCOPE OF EXPERTS’
PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY

1 Dated: April 14, 2015

CLYDE & CO US LLP

2
3

By: /s/ W. Andrew Miller
David A. Gabianelli
W. Andrew Miller
Attorneys for Defendant
NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY

4
5
6
7
8

9 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
April 21,2015.
11 DATED: ________________________
12

_____________________________________
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCOPE OF EXPERTS’
PERMISSIBLE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY