Eisenberg v. The Permanente Medical Group et al

Filing 63

ORDER Granting 62 Stipulation Regarding Extension of Expert Disclosure Deadline. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/23/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP Wendy M. Lazerson (SNB 97285) 1900 University Avenue, 4th Floor East Palo Also, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 849-4840 Facsimile: (650) 849-4602 4 5 6 7 8 Attorney for Defendant THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC. WILLIAM J. ROGERS, Esq. 19 Fourth Street, Suite 203 Petaluma, CA 94952 Tel.: 707-775-3090 Fax: 707-775-3098 9 10 Attorney for Plaintiff ELLIOT EISENBERG 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ELLIOT EISENBERG, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP; ) KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, ) INC.; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS; ) DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No. CV 10-3208 PJH JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE Trial Date: February 27, 2012 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Pursuant to Northern District Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2, Plaintiff Dr. Elliot Eisenberg and Defendant The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (“TPMG”), by and through their attorneys of record, have met and conferred regarding an extension of the expert disclosure deadline. Good cause exists for the extension set forth below for the following reasons: 1. The Court previously continued the date for the hearing on Defendants’ summary 1 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE /Case No. CV 10-3208 PJH A/74653844.1 1 judgment motions from October 12, 2011 to December 14, 2011 pursuant to stipulation of the 2 parties at the request of Plaintiff’s counsel. At the December 14, 2011 hearing the Court granted 3 the motion for summary judgment submitted on behalf of Defendants Kaiser Foundation Health 4 Plan, Inc., and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. The Court took Defendant TPMG’s motion for 5 summary judgment under submission. 6 2. Any expert selections and disclosures will necessarily depend on the outcome of 7 the which claims, if any, remain after the Court’s ruling on the summary judgment motion. 8 Without this continuance, the parties risk expending significant time, effort, and cost in 9 identifying and retaining experts that are ultimately unnecessary for trial in advance of the 10 disclosure date. 11 3. This proposed change to the expert disclosure deadline does not alter the February 12 27, 2012 trial date. The parties agree that this change will not be raised as a basis for any 13 subsequent request for a trial continuance. 14 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES that the expert disclosure deadline 15 will be extended as follows: 16 1. Expert Witness Disclosures: January 17, 2012 17 18 DATED: December 19, 2011 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 19 20 By /s/ Wendy M. Lazerson _____________ Wendy M. Lazerson Attorneys for Defendant THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 21 22 23 DATED: December 19, 2011 24 LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. ROGERS, ESQ. /s/ William J. Rogers By William J. Rogers, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff DR. ELLIOT EISENBERG 25 26 27 2 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE/ Case No. CV 10-3208 PJH A/74653844.1 1 DECLARATION OF WENDY M. LAZERSON IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION TO CONTINUE EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE 2 3 I, Wendy M. Lazerson, declare: 4 1. I am a member of the State Bar of California and a partner of the law firm of 5 Bingham McCutchen LLP, counsel for Defendant The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. 6 (“TPMG”). I make this declaration based on my own personal knowledge, and if called as a 7 witness, I could and would testify to the facts set forth herein. 8 2. At the request of Plaintiff’s counsel, the parties previously stipulated, and the 9 Court ordered, a continuance of the opposition and reply briefing schedule and the hearing date 10 on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment from October 12, 2011 to December 14, 2011. 11 3. At the December 14, 2011 hearing on TPMG’s summary judgment motion the 12 Court took the motion under submission and a ruling has not yet been issued. Any expert 13 selections and disclosures will necessarily depend on which claims, if any, remain after the 14 Court’s ruling on the summary judgment motion. Without this continuance, the parties risk 15 expending significant time, effort, and cost in identifying and retaining experts that are 16 ultimately unnecessary for trial in advance of the disclosure date. 17 4. The granting of this requested continuance of the expert disclosure deadline is not 18 anticipated to have any other effect on the overall scheduling of the case. The trial date can be 19 maintained for February 27, 2012 as currently scheduled. 20 21 22 I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 19, 2011 at Palo Alto, California. /s/ Wendy M. Lazerson ____________________ Wendy M. Lazerson 23 24 25 26 27 3 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE/ Case No. CV 10-3208 PJH A/74653844.1 1 2 [PROPOSED] ORDER The Stipulation of the parties changing the expert disclosure deadline is hereby accepted 3 by the Court and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 12/23/2011 DATED: ______________________ 7 ___________________________________ Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Court Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING EXTENSION OF EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE/ Case No. CV 10-3208 PJH A/74653844.1

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?