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)

1
2
3

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
Wendy M. Lazerson (SNB 97285)
1900 University Avenue, 4th Floor
East Palo Also, CA 94303
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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