Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Sprint Spectrum Realty Company L.P. et al

Filing 89

STIP AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DATES. Discovery due by 8/20/2012. Motions due by 10/8/2012. Responses due by 10/22/2012. Cross Motions due by 10/22/2012. Replies due by 11/5/2012. Replies due by 11/15/2012. Case Management Statement due by 11/29/2012. Further Case Management Conference set for 12/6/2012 02:00 PM. Motion Hearing set for 12/6/2012 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/8/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JOHN J. FLYNN III (SBN 76419)
BENJAMIN Z. RUBIN (SBN 249630)
NOSSAMAN LLP
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
Irvine, California 92612-0177
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.; SPRINT SPECTRUM REALTY
COMPANY, L.P.

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., a Delaware
Case No. C 11-00056 CW
limited partnership; SPRINT SPECTRUM
REALTY COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware
[Consolidated With Case No. C 08-00342
limited partnership,
CW]
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
DATES

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO, its governing body; MARK
CHURCH, in his official capacity as Board [Concurrently filed with Proposed Order]
Member of the Board of Supervisors for
the County of San Mateo; JERRY HILL, in
his official capacity as Board Member of
the Board of Supervisors for the County of
San Mateo; RICH GORDON, in his
official capacity as Board Member of the
Board of Supervisors for the of the County
of San Mateo; ROSE GIBSON, in her
official capacity as Board Member of the
Board of Supervisors for the County of San
Mateo; ADRIENNE TISSIER, in her
official capacity as Board Member of the
Board of Supervisors for the County of San
Mateo; and DOES 1-10, inclusive.
Defendants.
OC_IMAN_317411_2.DOC

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

1

WHEREAS, on or about January 17, 2008, Plaintiffs Sprint Spectrum L.P. and

2

Sprint Spectrum Realty Company, L.P. (collectively “Sprint”) filed the above entitled

3

action, challenging the denial of a renewal application under the federal

4

Telecommunications Act of 1996; and

5

WHEREAS, on or about June 9, 2008, defendants County of San Mateo, Board of

6

Supervisors for the County of San Mateo, and the individual Supervisors (collectively the

7

“County”) filed an answer in the above-entitled matter; and

8

WHEREAS, following the filing of the answer, the parties negotiated and signed a

9

contingent settlement agreement, with settlement contingent upon the County’s approval

10

of Sprint’s application after noticed hearing; and

11
12
13
14
15

WHEREAS, on September 15, 2009, the County again denied Sprint’s application;
and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2009, the County issued its written decision
denying Sprint’s application; and
WHEREAS, on October 21, 2009, Sprint filed an action entitled Sprint Spectrum

16

L.P., et al. v. County of San Mateo, et al., Case No. 09-05022 SBA, challenging the

17

County’s second denial under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996; and

18

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2009, the Court, consistent with a stipulation

19

submitted by the parties, ordered the two matters consolidated, scheduled a Case

20

Management Conference for the consolidated matter on April 13, 2010, and ordered

21

Sprint to file a consolidated amended complaint; and

22
23
24
25
26
27

WHEREAS, consistent with the Court’s order, Sprint filed a consolidated
complaint on November 3, 2009; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2009, the parties participated in a settlement
conference with the Honorable Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2010, the parties participated in a further settlement
conference with the Honorable Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James; and

28
-1-

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

1

WHEREAS, as a result of the further settlement discussions the parties negotiated

2

and signed a second contingent settlement agreement, with settlement contingent upon

3

the County’s approval of Sprint’s application after noticed hearing; and

4
5
6

WHEREAS, on December 7, 2010, the County again denied Sprint’s application;
and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2011, Sprint filed an action entitled Sprint Spectrum

7

L.P., et al. v. County of San Mateo, et al., Case No. 11-0056 JCS, challenging the

8

County’s third denial under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996; and

9
10
11

WHEREAS, on January 27, 2011, the Court found that the matter was related and
vacated all previously set dates and deadlines; and
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2011, the parties participated in a Case Management

12

Conference, with the Court ordering the County to lodge a certified administrative record

13

by June 27, 1011, and establishing August 26, 2011 as the discovery cutoff, October 13,

14

2011 as the deadline for Sprint’s opening brief, October 27, 2011 as the deadline for the

15

County’s opposition/cross motion, November 10, 2011 as the deadline for Sprint’s

16

reply/opposition to cross motion, November 10, 2011 as the deadline for the County’s

17

reply brief, and scheduling a further Case Management Conference for December 1,

18

2011; and

19
20
21

WHEREAS, on July 6, 2011, the parties participated in a further settlement
conference with Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte; and
WHEREAS, the parties have been and continue to be actively engaged in

22

discussions, including the exchange of information and ideas for a compromise resolution

23

of this matter; and

24
25
26
27

WHEREAS, the parties believe that the evaluation of an independent third-party
may aid in the resolution of this matter; and
WHEREAS, the parties have identified two potential independent consultants and
the general framework for an independent third-party review; and

28
-2-

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

1

WHEREAS, the County, acting through its Board of Supervisors, has provided

2

County Counsel with authority to hire one of the two proposed independent consultants;

3

and

4

WHEREAS, the County has approached the potential consultants and requested

5

that each of them propose a scope of work and project costs for an independent report to

6

be prepared by them on behalf of the County, including the need for any subcontractors

7

to perform supplemental analyses, but the County has not finalized contract terms with

8

either consultant; and

9

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by and between Sprint and the

10

County, through their respective counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

11
12

1.

2.

October 8, 2012.

15
16

3.

4.

5.

That the May 9, 2012 deadline for County’s reply be continued to November

15, 2012.

21
22

That the April 30, 2012 deadline for Sprint’s reply/opposition to cross

motion (contained within a single brief) be continued November 5, 2012.

19
20

That the April 16, 2012 deadline for County’s opposition/cross motion

(contained within a single brief) be continued to October 22, 2012.

17
18

That the April 2, 2012 deadline for Sprint’s opening brief be continued to

2012.

13
14

That the February 21, 2012 discovery cutoff be continued to August 20,

6.

That the case management conference currently set for May 24, 2012 at 2:00

p.m. be held on December 6, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.

23

7.

These same deadlines shall apply to this action and Sprint Spectrum, L.P. et

24

al. v. County of San Mateo, et al., Case No. C 08-00342 CW.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
-3-

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

1
2

8.

That this Stipulation may be executed in counterparts. All counterparts

3

when executed shall constitute one document notwithstanding that all of the parties are

4

not a signatory to the original or the same counterpart.

5
6
7

Dated: February 9, 2012

8

SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL
By:

/s/ Timothy J. Fox
Timothy J. Fox, Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendants

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Dated: February 9, 2012

NOSSAMAN LLP
By:

/s/ John J. Flynn III
John J. Flynn III
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JOHN J. FLYNN III (SBN 76419)
BENJAMIN Z. RUBIN (SBN 249630)
NOSSAMAN LLP
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
Irvine, California 92612-0177
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P.; SPRINT SPECTRUM REALTY
COMPANY, L.P.

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., a Delaware
Case No. C 11-00056 CW
limited partnership; SPRINT SPECTRUM
REALTY COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware
[Related to Case No. C 08-00342 CW]
limited partnership,
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE
CONTINUING DATES

vs.
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO, its governing body; MARK
CHURCH, in his official capacity as Board
Member of the Board of Supervisors for
the County of San Mateo; JERRY HILL, in
his official capacity as Board Member of
the Board of Supervisors for the County of
San Mateo; RICH GORDON, in his
official capacity as Board Member of the
Board of Supervisors for the of the County
of San Mateo; ROSE GIBSON, in her
official capacity as Board Member of the
Board of Supervisors for the County of San
Mateo; ADRIENNE TISSIER, in her
official capacity as Board Member of the
Board of Supervisors for the County of San
Mateo; and DOES 1-10, inclusive.
Defendants.
OC_IMAN_317415_1 (2).DOC

ORDER RE CONTINUING DATES

1

Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court continues the February 21, 2012

2

discovery cutoff to August 20, 2012; the April 12, 2012 deadline for Sprint’s opening

3

brief to October 8, 2012; the April 16, 2012 deadline for County’s opposition/cross

4

motion (contained within a single brief) to October 22, 2012; the April 30, 2012 deadline

5

for Sprint’s reply/opposition to cross motion (contained within a single brief) to

6

November 5, 2012; the May 9, 2012 deadline for County’s reply to November 15, 2012;

7

and the case management conference currently set for May 24, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. to

8

December 6, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. The motions will also be heard on Thursday,

9

December 6, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. Further, these same deadlines shall apply to this action

10

and Sprint Spectrum, L.P., et al. v. County of San Mateo, et al., Case No. 08-00342 CW.

11
12

Dated:

3/8/2012

Hon. CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

ORDER RE CONTINUING DATES