Gershman v. Bayer HealthCare LLC

Filing 77

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 76 Stipulation re 61 Order Joint Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2015)

Download PDF
5 Elaine A. Ryan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) eryan@bffb.com Patricia N. Syverson (SBN 203111) psyverson@bffb.com BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 10 Ryan Sandrock (CA Bar 251781) rsandrock@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-1200 Facsimile: (415) 772-7400 11 Attorney for Defendant Bayer HealthCare, LLC 12 [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] 1 2 3 4 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LIZA GERSHMAN, On Behalf of Herself and ) All Others Similarly Situated, ) Case No. 3:14-cv-05332-HSG ) Plaintiffs, ) JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER v. ) ) Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC. a Delaware ) Limited Liability Company, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER CASE NO. 14-CV-05332 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Liza Gershman (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Bayer HealthCare, LLC (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, the Court entered a Scheduling Order on June 5, 2015 (Doc. 61), setting certain deadlines in the case, including deadlines for the class certification submissions and a class certification hearing; WHEREAS, the discovery process in this case has been ongoing but at a slower pace than initially expected, in part as a result of the time necessary to undertake and complete the electronic document review; WHEREAS, the Parties believe that additional time (approximately three months) is necessary to complete Defendant’s document production, to allow Plaintiffs to review the production in its entirety, and for both Parties to prepare for and take depositions of witnesses (including the plaintiffs) for purposes of supporting and opposing class certification; WHEREAS, the Parties agree that because additional time is needed for purposes of addressing class certification, adjustments are needed to the deadlines set forth in the Court’s June 5, 2015 Scheduling Order; WHEREAS, the Parties met and conferred, and have agreed to a 90-day extension regarding class certification and related deadlines. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the Parties, by and through their counsel, subject to the Court’s approval, that the Scheduling Order dated June 5, 2015 be amended as follows: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Event Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification Deadline to File Opposition to Motion for Class Certification Deadline to File Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification Last Day to Hear Motion for Class Certification Dated: December 3, 2015 Date March 9, 2016 May 11, 2016 June 22, 2016 July 18, 2016 BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. By: /s/ Patricia N. Syverson Elaine A. Ryan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) eryan@bffb.com 28 2 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER CASE NO. 14-CV-05332 Patricia N. Syverson (203111) psyverson@bffb.com 2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 1 2 3 BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. Manfred P. Muecke (222893) mmuecke@bffb.com 600 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 4 5 6 BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC Stewart M. Weltman (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) sweltman@boodlaw.com Max A Stein (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) mstein@boodlaw.com Nada Djordjevic (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com 353 North Clark Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60654 7 8 9 10 11 14 SIPRUT PC Joseph Siprut (To be Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 17 North State Street Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff Liza Gershman 12 13 16 Dated: December 3, 2015 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP By: 17 /s/Kara L. McCall Ryan Sandrock (CA Bar 251781) rsandrock@sidley.com Sidley Austin LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 18 19 20 22 Kara L. McCall (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) kmccall@sidley.com Eugene A. Schoon (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) eschoon@sidley.com 23 Counsel for Defendant Bayer HealthCare, LLC 21 24 25 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED EXCEPT THAT THE LAST DAY TO HEAR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS JULY 21, 2016. 26 Dated: December 4, 2015 27 Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 28 3 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER CASE NO. 14-CV-05332 1 2 3 4 5 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL OF CONTENT Counsel for Plaintiff, Patricia Syverson, certifies that, pursuant to Section 2.f.4 of the Court’s CM/ECF Administrative Policies, Defendant’s Counsel, Kara McCall, has reviewed the contents of the foregoing, and authorized placement of her electronic signature on this document. 6 DATED: December 3, 2015 BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 7 By: /s/ Patricia N. Syverson 2325 E. Camelback Rd. Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 psyverson@bffb.com 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER CASE NO. 14-CV-05332 1 2 3 4 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on December 3, 2015, a true and correct copy of the following document was electronically filed and served on all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM-ECF system: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER 6 7 Pursuant to the CM/ECF system, registration as a CM/ECF user constitutes consent to 8 electronic service through the Court’s transmission facilities. Any other counsel of record will be 9 served by electronic mail and U.S. mail. 10 11 _/s/ Patricia N. Syverson _ Patricia N. Syverson Counsel for Plaintiff 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER CASE NO. 14-CV-05332

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?