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)
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?