Daie v. Intel Corporation Long Term Disability Plan et al

Filing 53

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION BRIEF, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Responses due by 7/8/2016. Replies due by 7/15/2016. Motion Hearing set for 8/4/2016 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 6/22/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2016)

1

[SEE SIGNATURE PAGE FOR COUNSEL]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ED DAIE,

12
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

v.
Defendants,
THE REED GROUP, INTEL
CORPORATION, CLAIM APPEAL
FIDUCIARY SERVICES, and Does 1-50

) Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA
)
) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
) ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
) FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE
) OPPOSITION BRIEF
)
)
) Date: July 21, 2016
) Time: 8:00 AM
) Courtroom: 8 (19th Floor)
) Judge: Hon. William Alsup
)
)
)
)
)

22
23
24
25
26

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Plaintiff Ed Daie and Defendants Intel Corporation, Reed Group, and Claim
Appeal Fiduciary Services hereby stipulate and move the Court for an Order extending
the time for Plaintiff to file his Opposition Brief against Defendants’ Motion for

27
28

Summary Judgment. In support hereof, the parties show the Court as follows:
________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TIM E EXTENSION

1
2
3
4
5

1. On June 10, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on
Plaintiff’s claim. In support of the motion, Defendants filed 51 exhibits from the
Administrative Record, totaling 2,643 pages in length.
2. At the time of Defendants’ filing, Plaintiff’s counsel was out of the country on

6

previously scheduled family vacation. Counsel did not return to the office until

7

June 16, 2016.

8
9
10

3. Currently, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief is due to be
filed on June 24.
4. Plaintiff’s counsel does not believe that 8 days is sufficient time to adequately

11
12

respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, given the complexity

13

and volume of the Administrative Record in dispute. Plaintiff’s counsel believes

14

that this matter can be resolved on summary judgment; therefore, its response

15

to Defendant’s motion is of paramount importance.

16

5. Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant’s counsel on June 20 to discuss its

17
18

agreement to a two-week extension of time for the filing of its Opposition.

19

Defendant’s counsel had no objection to the extension and agreed to the

20

proposed stipulation.

21
22

6. This request is not brought for the purpose of delay, but to give Plaintiff’s
counsel adequate time to construct and respond to Defendant’s motion.

23
24

WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiff a

25

two-week extension for the filing of its Opposition Brief. The Opposition would be due

26

on July 8 and Defendant’s Reply would be due on July 15. In order to give the Court

27

adequate time to review the filings, the parties request that the motion hearing and

28
________________________________________________________________________________________
2
Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TIM E EXTENSION

1

further case management conference be continued until August 4, 2016.

2
3

Dated: June 22, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

By:
/s/ Eric Whitehead
Ray Bourhis, Esq. SBN 53196
Eric Whitehead, Esq. SBN 301449
RAY BOURHIS ASSOCIATES
12 Funston Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94129
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ed Daie

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

By:
/s/ Nancy Pridgen_________
Nancy B. Pridgen (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
PATEL BURKHALTER LAW GROUP
4045 Orchard Road, Building 400
Atlanta, GA 30080
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Attorney for Defendants
INTEL CORPORATION, REED GROUP,
and CLAIM APPEAL FIDUCIARY SERVICES

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________________________________________________________________
3
Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TIM E EXTENSION

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER

2
3

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

4

that the deadline for Plaintiff to file his Opposition Brief is extended until July 8.

5

Defendant’s Reply Brief is due July 15. The motion hearing and further case

6
7
8

management conference will be continued until Thursday, August 4 at 8:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.

9
10

Dated: June 22, 2016.

11
12

__________________________

13
14

Hon. William Alsup
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________________________________________________________________
5
Case No.: 3:15-cv-05255-WHA
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR TIM E EXTENSION