Haley v. Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc. et al

Filing 93

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 91 Stipulation to Continue Plaintiff's Motion to Quash; Granted AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT; filed by Cohen & Steers Capital Management, Inc. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 08/03/2011. (kns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011)

1
2
3

SHEA LAW OFFICES
Mary Shea Hagebols (SBN 113222) [e-mail]
1814 Franklin Street, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-520-9407

4
5
6
7

VAN DE POEL, LEVY & ALLEN LLP
Jeffrey W. Allen (SBN 099240) [e-mail]
Nina Paul (SBN 249954) [e-mail]
1600 South Main Plaza, Suite 325
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 925-934-6060

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Attorneys for Plaintiff
JANET HALEY
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Francis J. Ortman III (SBN 213202) [e-mail]
Matthew J. Mason (SBN 271344) [e-mail]
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.

15
16
17
18
19

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
Catherine A. Conway (SBN 98366) [e-mail]
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
DAVID EDLIN

20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

23

OAKLAND

24
25
26
27
28

JANET HALEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL
)
MANAGEMENT, INC., A New York
)
Corporation Doing Business in California; and )

Case No. C10-03856-PJH
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH,
OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO MODIFY,
THE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA
SERVED ON CONSTELLATION
ENERGY GROUP, INC. AND
SUBPOENAS/DEPOSITION NOTICES

1
Stipulation to Continue Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash / Case No. C10-03856-PJH

1
2

DAVID EDLIN, an individual,
Defendants.

3

)
)
)
)
)
)

WITH DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
DIRECTED TO THIRD PARTY
WITNESSES CHAD FEILKE AND
GREGORY KOSIER

4
5

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and among Plaintiff JANET HALEY (“Plaintiff”),

6

Defendant COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. (“Cohen & Steers”) and

7

Defendant DAVID EDLIN (“Edlin”) (collectively the “Parties”), through their respective

8

undersigned counsel, as follows:

9

WHEREAS, Defendants served a Notice of Deposition of third party witness Gregory

10

Kosier (“Kosier”) on June 22, 2011 (and have unsuccessfully attempted to serve the

11

accompanying subpoena on Kosier) noticing the deposition of Kosier for July 20, 2011;

12

WHEREAS, Defendants served a Notice of Deposition of third party witness Chad Feilke

13

(“Feilke”) on June 23, 2011 and served the accompanying subpoena on Feilke on June 27, 2011

14

noticing the deposition of Feilke for July 22, 2011;

15

WHEREAS, Defendants served a Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or

16

Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises to Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (“Constellation

17

Energy”) (Mr. Kosier’s employer) on June 27, 2011;

18
19

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served her Objections to Defendants’ Notice of Deposition of
Gregory Kosier and Request for Production of Documents on July 1, 2011;

20

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served her Objections to Defendants’ Subpoena to Produce

21

Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises to Constellation Energy

22

Group, Inc. on July 1, 2011;

23

WHEREAS, Plaintiff subsequently filed her Motion to Quash, or Alternatively, to

24

Modify, the Third Party Subpoena Served on Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and

25

Subpoenas/Deposition Notices With Documents Requested Directed to Third Party Witnesses

26

Chad Feilke and Gregory Kosier (“Motion to Quash”) on July 6, 2011 and set a hearing date for

27

August 23, 2011;

28

WHEREAS, the deadline by which Defendants would have been required to file their
2
Stipulation to Continue Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash / Case No. C10-03856-PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash was July 20, 2011;
WHEREAS, the deadline by which Plaintiff would have been required to file her Reply
in support of her Motion to Quash was July 27, 2011;
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to seek the services of a Special Master and/or
Discovery Referee to handle discovery disputes going forward;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the issues or disputes surrounding the deposition

7

notices and/or subpoenas mentioned herein will be the subject of review and decision by the

8

prospective Special Master and/or Discovery Referee;

9

WHEREAS, Defendants informed Quest Discovery Services that the order for records

10

subpoenaed from Constellation Energy should be placed on a thirty-day hold, and will not be

11

released to either party until August 13, 2011 at the earliest;

12
13
14

WHEREAS, the Parties have also contacted Constellation Energy and informed them that
the Motion to Quash is pending and that records need not be produced until further notice;
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to hold a Case Management Conference with the

15

Honorable Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on August 25, 2011 to make a determination with respect to

16

appointment of a Special Master and/or Discovery Referee;

17

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the Parties, through their

18

respective undersigned counsel, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is to be taken off calendar and

19

the hearing date for the Motion to Quash is to be continued indefinitely pending the procuring of

20

a Special Master and/or Discovery Referee who will decide the issues that are the subject of the

21

Motion to Quash, and that the Parties’ respective deadlines for Defendants’ brief in Opposition

22

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, and Plaintiff’s brief in Reply to Defendants’ brief in Opposition

23

be accordingly continued indefinitely;

24

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the Parties

25

that if, for any reason, a Special Master and/or Discovery Referee is not retained and/or has not

26

made a decision with respect to the issues that are the subject of the Motion to Quash on or by

27

August 13, 2011, that the Parties will contact Quest Discovery Services and ask that the order for

28

records continue to be placed on hold pending resolution of the issues with respect to the
3
Stipulation to Continue Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash / Case No. C10-03856-PJH

1

subpoena for records to Constellation Energy, whether through a new hearing date for the

2

Motion to Quash, by agreement of the Parties or by later decision of the Special Master and/or

3

Discovery Referee, and will further notify Constellation Energy of the status of the Motion to

4

Quash and subpoena;

5

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the Parties

6

that, should Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash be placed back on calendar and set for hearing at any

7

time, Defendants shall have seven calendar days from the date the Motion to Quash is placed

8

back on calendar to file their brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, and accordingly,

9

Plaintiff shall have seven calendar days from the deadline for Defendants’ brief in Opposition to

10

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash in which to file her brief in Reply to Defendants’ brief in Opposition

11

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, and in no instance shall the hearing for Plaintiff’s Motion to

12

Quash be set earlier than seven calendar days after the deadline for Plaintiff’s brief in Reply to

13

Defendants’ brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Stipulation to Continue Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash / Case No. C10-03856-PJH

1
2

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: August 2, 2011

SHEA LAW OFFICES

3

By:

/s/ Mary Shea Hagebols
Mary Shea Hagebols
Attorney for Plaintiff
JANET HALEY

4
5
6

DATED: August 2, 2011

VAN DE POEL, LEVY & ALLEN LLP

7

By:

/s/ Jeffrey W. Allen
Jeffrey W. Allen
Nina Paul
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JANET HALEY

8
9
10

DATED: August 2, 2011

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

11
By:

/s/ Matthew J. Mason
Francis J. Ortman, III
Matthew J. Mason
Attorneys for Defendant
COHEN & STEERS CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, INC.

12
13
14
15

DATED: August 2, 2011

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD
LLP

16
17

By:

/s/ Catherine A. Conway
Catherine A. Conway
Attorney for Defendant
DAVID EDLIN

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Stipulation to Continue Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash / Case No. C10-03856-PJH

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2
3

The parties having so stipulated, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Motion and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is off calendar and the hearing date for the Motion to Quash
Withdrawl of the motion is without prejudice to re-noticing the motion at a later date.
is continued indefinitely pending the procuring of a Special Master and/or Discovery Referee

6

who will decide the issues that are the subject of the Motion to Quash, and the Parties’ respective

7

deadlines for Defendants’ brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, and Plaintiff’s brief

8

in Reply to Defendants’ brief in Opposition are accordingly continued indefinitely;

4

9

If, for any reason, a Special Master and/or Discovery Referee is not retained and/or has

10

not made a decision with respect to the issues that are the subject of the Motion to Quash on or

11

by August 13, 2011, the Parties will contact Quest Discovery Services and ask that the order for

12

records continue to be placed on hold pending resolution of the issues with respect to the

13

subpoena for records to Constellation Energy, whether through a new hearing date for the

14

Motion to Quash, by agreement of the Parties or by later decision of the Special Master and/or

15

Discovery Referee, and further notify Constellation Energy of the status of the Motion to Quash

16

and/or subpoena;

18

re-filed
Should Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash be placed back on calendar and set for hearing at any
re-filed
time, Defendants shall have seven calendar days from the date the Motion to Quash is placed

19

back on calendar to file their brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, and accordingly,

20

Plaintiff shall have seven calendar days from the deadline for Defendants’ brief in Opposition to

21

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash in which to file her brief in Reply to Defendants’ brief in Opposition

22

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, and in no instance shall the hearing for Plaintiff’s Motion to

23

Quash be set earlier than seven calendar days after the deadline for Plaintiff’s brief in Reply to

24

Defendants’ brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash.

17

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 3, 2011
DATED: _______________________

27

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28
13627934v.1

6
Stipulation to Continue Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash / Case No. C10-03856-PJH