Harris et al v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 94

ORDER Granting 93 STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME. Responses due by 3/9/2012. Replies due by 3/16/2012. 88 , 90 , 91 Motion Hearing set for 4/5/2012 02:00 PM before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Case Management Statement due by 3/29/2012. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/5/2012 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/30/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

WILLIAM L. VEEN, NO. 043150
THE VEEN FIRM, P.C.
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 220
San Francisco, CA 94102
P.O. Box 7296
San Francisco, CA 94120-7296
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ROBERT B. ABEL, JR., NO. 141405
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT B. ABEL, JR.
The Standard Oil Building
225 Bush Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
RUTHELLEN HARRIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
ROBERT JEAN HARRIS, HEATHER HARRIS, JAMIE HARRIS AND GREG HARRIS

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

RUTHELLEN HARRIS, individually and as
personal representative of ROBERT JEAN
HARRIS, HEATHER HARRIS, JAMIE HARRIS
and GREG HARRIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
WAREHOUSE DEMO SERVICES, INC.,
CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION, FRESH CHOICE
INTERNATIONAL, LLC and DOES 1 – 100,
inclusive,

CASE NO. CV-10-04628CW
STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME
AND ORDER
Local Rule 6-2
Complaint Filed: October 13, 2010
Trial Date:
June 4, 2012

Defendants.

25
26

All parties agree to continue the hearing and briefing schedule on the separate motions for

27

summary judgment of defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) and defendant

28

Warehouse Demo Services Inc., (“WDS”) by thirty (30) days, or such other date as is convenient for

T HE VEEN FIRM, P.C.
711 VAN NESS AVE., SUITE 220

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
Tel. [phone]
www.veenfirm.com

-1STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

the Court.

2

Defendant WDS filed its Motion on January 24, 2012 (Docket No. 87), with a hearing set for

3

March 1, 2012. Plaintiffs’ opposition is due February 7, 2012, and WDS’s reply is due February 14,

4

2012. Defendant Costco filed its Motion on January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 90), with a hearing date of

5

March 1, 2012. Plaintiffs’ opposition is due February 9, 2012, Costco’s reply is due February 16,

6

2012.

7

A. LR 6-2(a)(1): The Reasons For The Requested Enlargement Or Shortening Of Time.

8

The reasons for the proposed modifications are the inability of plaintiffs’ counsel to prepare

9

and file opposition briefs to the two motions due February 7 and 9, based on: (1) pre-paid previously

10

scheduled out-of-state travel and depositions in the next two weeks; (2) that certain deposition

11

transcripts required for the oppositions have not yet been finalized by the court reporters; (3)

12

Plaintiffs noticed the deposition of WDS/Costco employee Tamika Grisez for July 20, 2011,

13

December 7, 2011, and most recently, February 6, 2012. Plaintiff had difficulty locating and serving

14

this former WDS employee; and (4) Plaintiffs took the deposition of WDS employee Deanna

15

Gehrett on January 20, 2012. Based on that deposition, plaintiffs propounded new requests for

16

documents on January 20, 2012, necessary to verify the time the various WDS employees worked on

17

the accident date. WDS’s responses are due on February 24, 2012.

18
19

B. LR 6-2(a)(2): All Previous Time Modifications In The Case.
The trial date and pretrial conference have never been modified. Previous time modifications

20

in the case include changing deadlines for: (1) completion of mediation (from October 19, 2011 to

21

January 31, 2012); (2) expert disclosures (from November 1, 2011, to February 1, 2012); (3) rebuttal

22

experts (from December 1, 2011, to March 1, 2012); (4) completion of non-expert discovery (to May

23

4, 2012); (5) completion of expert discovery (to May 18, 2012).

24
25

C. LR 6-2(a)(3): The Effect The Requested Time Modification Would Have On The
Schedule For The Case.

26

This requested time modification will have no effect on the schedule for the case.

27

Based on the foregoing, the parties respectfully request the Court continue the hearings and

28

T HE VEEN FIRM, P.C.
711 VAN NESS AVE., SUITE 220

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
Tel. [phone]
www.veenfirm.com

briefing schedule as set forth above.

-2STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Respectfully Submitted,
DATED: January 27, 2012

THE VEEN FIRM, P.C.

3
4

By:

_______/s/________________________
Anthony L. Label
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5
6
7

DATED: January 27, 2012

PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER &
MOSKOWITZ, LLP, LLP

8
9

By:

_______/s/_______________________
Oscar Pardo, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant Warehouse Demo
Services, Inc.

10
11
12

DATED: January 27, 2012

CROSBY & ROWELL, LLP

13
14

By:

_______/s/_______________________
Thomas C. Crosby, Esq.
Amy M. Kimmel, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendant Costco Wholesale
Corporation

15
16
17
18

Order:

19

The hearings on Motions for Summary Judgment of Defendant Warehouse Demo Services,

20

Inc., and Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation, and the further case management

21

conference are continued to April 5, 2012, 2:00 p.m.. Oppositions are due March 9, 2012. Reply

22

Briefs are due March 16, 2012. This hearing date may not allow sufficient time for ruling on

23

the motions before the pretrial preparations must begin, and thus may necessitate

24

continuing the trial date.

25

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

26
27
28

T HE VEEN FIRM, P.C.
711 VAN NESS AVE., SUITE 220

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
Tel. [phone]
www.veenfirm.com

DATED: January 30, 2012

By:________________________________
Hon. Claudia Wilken
United Stated District Judge
-3-

STIPULATION TO CHANGE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER