Trustees of the Northern California Tile Industry Pension Trust Fund et al v. Peacock Tile and Marble, Inc. et al

Filing 38

CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 37 .ORDER re 36 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Trustees of the Northern California Tile Industry Pension Trust Fund, Trustees of the Northern California Tile Industry Apprenticeship and Traini ng Trust Fund, Trustees of the Northern California Tile Industry Labor Management Cooperation Trust Fund, Trustees of the Northern California Tile Industry Vacation and Holiday Trust Fund, Trustees of the Northern California Tile Industry Health and Welfare Trust Fund. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 10/31/2012. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2012) Modified on 10/31/2012 (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Case4:11-cv-03859-DMR Document36-1 Filed10/30/12 Page1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE, LLP JOHN J. DAVIS, JR., SBN 65594 jjdavis@dcbsf.com SARAH GROSSMAN-SWENSON, SBN 259792 sgs@dcbsf.com 595 Market Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel.: (415) 597-7200 Fax: (415) 597-7201 Attorneys for Plaintiffs SWEENEY, MASON, WILSON & BOSOMWORTH ROGER M. MASON, SBN 107486 rmason@smwb.com 983 University Avenue, Suite 104C Los Gatos, CA 95032 Tel: (408) 356-3000 Fax: (408) 354-8839 Attorneys for Defendants 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TILE INDUSTRY PENSION TRUST FUND; TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TILE INDUSTRY HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND; TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TILE INDUSTRY APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING TRUST FUND; TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TILE INDUSTRY VACATION AND HOLIDAY TRUST FUND; and TRUSTEES of the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TILE INDUSTRY LABOR MANAGEMENT COOPERATION TRUST FUND; 22 Plaintiffs, 23 v. 24 25 26 27 28 PEACOCK TILE AND MARBLE, INC., a California corporation; CHRISTYNE GRACE PAVONE; and DOES 1-10, Defendants. ) Case No. CV 11-3859 DMR ) ) ) Modified ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER ON ) STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ) ) RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY AND ) EXPERT DEADLINES ) ) ) Filed: August 5, 2011 ) ) ) Judge: Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu ) Courtroom No. 4 ) 3rd Floor ) ) Oakland Courthouse ) 1301 Clay Street ) Oakland, CA 94612 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY AND EXPERT DEADLINES Case No. CV 11-3859 DMR Case4:11-cv-03859-DMR Document36-1 Filed10/30/12 Page2 of 2 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED REQUEST FOR RELIEF 2 FROM DISCOVERY AND EXPERT DEADLINES 3 On October 30, 2012, Plaintiffs and Defendants submitted to this Court, the Honorable 4 Donna M. Ryu presiding, the Parties’ Stipulated Request for Relief from Discovery and Expert 5 Deadlines. Having considered the papers and evidence submitted by the parties, all other 6 pleadings and records on file herein, and good cause appearing, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 8 The Parties’ request for relief from the discovery and expert deadlines set out in the 9 November 21, 2012, Pretrial Order is GRANTED. The following discovery and expert deadlines 10 shall now apply: 11 1. All non-expert discovery shall be completed by 12/31/2012. 12 2. Experts shall be disclosed and reports provided by 12/31/12. 13 3. Rebuttal experts shall be disclosed and reports provided by 1/14/2012. 14 4. All discovery from experts shall be completed by 1/28/2012. 2/28/2013 at 11:00 a.m. 5. The last day for hearing dispositive motions shall be 2/27/2012. 16 21 RT Respectfully submitted by: DAVIS, COWELL & BOWE, LLP 24 25 26 ER By: A H 22 23 _________________________________ u THE HONORABLE a M. Ry M. RYU onn DONNA Judge D United States Magistrate Judge NO October 31, 2012 Dated: ____________________ FO 19 D RDERE S SO O IED IT I DIF AS MO R NIA UNIT ED 18 20 S IT IS SO ORDERED. RT U O 17 S DISTRICT TE C TA LI 15 N F D IS T IC T O R C /s/ Sarah Grossman-Swenson Sarah Grossman-Swenson Attorney for Plaintiffs 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER ON STIPULATED REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY AND EXPERT DEADLINES Case No. CV 11-3859 DMR

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?