Conde et al v. 2020 Companies LLC et al

Filing 273

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE re 271 . STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND DEADLINE TO FILE MOTIONS filed by 20/20 Communications, Inc., Larry Dale Clark, Shikwana Jennings, Jerrimy Farris, Open Do or Marketing, LLC, Carlos Conde, Lisa Drake. Close of Expert Discovery due by 5/19/2018. Close of Fact Discovery due by 6/19/2018. Motions due by 7/10/2018. Rebuttal Expert Discovery due by 6/19/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/6/18. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 HAROLD LICHTEN, pro hac vice (hlichten@llrlaw.com) JILL KAHN, pro hac vice (jkahn@llrlaw.com) LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 MATTHEW D. CARLSON (State Bar No. 273242) mcarlson@llrlaw.com LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary St., Suite 201 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 630-2651 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shikwana Jennings and Lisa Drake 11 CHRISTOPHER W. DECKER (SBN 229426) 12 christopher.decker@ogletreedeakins.com OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 13 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 14 Telephone: 213.239.9800 Facsimile: 213.239.9045 15 WENDY V. MILLER, pro hac vice 16 wendy.miller@ogletreedeakins.com OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 17 401 Commerce Street, Suite 1200 Nashville, TN 37067 18 Telephone: 615.254.1900 Facsimile: 615.254.1908 19 Attorneys for Defendant 20 2020 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 21 22 23 24 KRISTIN ALEXANDRIA SMITH ksmith@fosteremploymentlaw.com Foster Employment Law 3000 Lakeshore Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 510-763-1900 Fax: 510-763-5952 25 MICHAEL LESLIE THOMPSON, pro hac vice 26 mthompson@lehrmiddlebrooks.com Lehr Middlebrooks Vreeland and Thompson, P.C. 27 2021 Third Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 28 205-326-3002 Joint Stipulation and Proposed 1 Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND MOTION DATES 1 Fax: 205-326-3002 2 Attorneys for Defendant OPEN DOOR MARKETING, LLC LARRY DALE CLARK JERRIMY FARRIS 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SHIKWANA JENNINGS AND LISA DRAKE, 10 11 Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND DEADLINE TO FILE MOTIONS 12 2020 COMPANIES, INC., OPEN DOOR MARKETING, LLC, JERRIMY FARRIS, AND LARRY 14 CLARK, 13 Defendants. 15 Complaint Filed: Trial Date: Magistrate Judge: September 8, 2015 None Hon. Kandis A. Westmore 16 17 18 Plaintiffs Shikwana Jennings and Lisa Drake (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant 2020 19 Communications, Inc. (“2020”), Open Door Marketing, LLC, Jerrimy Farris and Larry Clark, 20 (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as 21 follows: 22 23 24 25 26 27 1) On December 12, 2017, this Court held a Further Case Management Conference and set the following deadlines: Close of Expert Discovery: 3/5/18 Close of Rebuttal Expert Discovery: 4/2/18 Fact Discovery Cutoff: 4/2/18 Motions to be filed by: 4/26/18 28 Joint Stipulation and Proposed 2 Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND MOTION DATES 1 2) The Parties jointly request that the Court continue all deadlines in its December 12, 2 2017 Order by approximately 75 days. The new deadlines would be: 3 Close of Expert Discovery: 5/19/18 4 Close of Rebuttal Expert Discovery: 6/19/18 5 Fact Discovery Cutoff: 6/19/18 6 Motions to be filed by: 7/10/18 7 3) Good cause exists to continue the deadlines in the Court’s December 12, 2017 Order. 8 The Parties have been unable to complete all discovery in this action due to a variety of unforeseen 9 developments affecting this litigation, including: 10 a. The parties dispute whether certain communications between plaintiffs’ counsel and 11 defendants Larry Clark and Jerrimy Farris are discoverable. The dispute has been 12 submitted the Court for a ruling, (Dkt Nos. 257 & 264), which has not yet been 13 issued. 20/20 has argued that it would be prejudiced if discovery were to proceed 14 without the production of these communications. 15 b. On August 24, 2017, Defendants brought a Motion to Compel Arbitration against 16 certain opt-in plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 216.) The Court stayed the motion pending a 17 ruling from the United States Supreme Court in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP, and 18 simultaneously stayed this case with respect to any “opt-in Plaintiffs who have 19 signed an arbitration agreement, and would be subject to a motion to compel 20 arbitration.” (Dkt. No. 235) As of today, Morris remains undecided, and the stay 21 remains in place, preventing the parties from determining whether the claims of 22 those opt-in Plaintiffs will proceed in this Court or in arbitration and, if the former, 23 from completing discovery with regard to those claims. 24 c. Due to the stay, Plaintiffs’ Motion For Equitable Tolling of the Statute of 25 26 233) has also been stayed. (Dkt. # 238.) Hence, the applicable statute of limitations 27 for these claims is unresolved, impacting the scope of discovery regarding those 28 Joint Stipulation and Proposed Limitations For FLSA Claims Of Expanded Collective Opt-In Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. claims, if they are ultimately allowed to proceed in this Court. 3 Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND MOTION DATES 1 2 4) Additionally, counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for 2020 are in discussions regarding a 3 possible case management plan which would submit certain potentially dispositive legal issues to 4 the Court for decision in the next 60 days based on a joint statement of facts, while deferring 5 further discovery on other issues until after the Court’s ruling, thereby potentially avoiding 6 unnecessary costs and disputes and promoting the efficient use of the Parties’ and the Court’s 7 resources. Maintaining the existing deadlines would foreclose this possibility. 8 5) Accordingly, the Parties jointly request that the Court continue the deadlines in its 9 December 12, 2017 Order as set forth above. 10 11 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 12 13 14 DATED: March 2, 2018 LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN. 15 16 17 By: /s/ Jill S. Kahn Jill S. Kahn 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19 20 21 DATED: March 2, 2018 22 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 23 24 25 26 27 By: /s/ Christopher W. Decker Christopher W. Decker Attorneys for Defendant 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (erroneously sued as 2020 Companies LLC) 28 Joint Stipulation and Proposed 4 Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND MOTION DATES 1 DATED: March 2, 2018 2 LEHR MIDDLEBROOKS VREELAND AND THOMPSON, P.C. 3 By: /s/ Michael Leslie Thompson Michael Leslie Thompson 4 5 Attorneys for Defendants OPEN DOOR MARKETING, LLC LARRY DALE CLARK JERRIMY FARRIS 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joint Stipulation and Proposed 5 Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND MOTION DATES 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the deadline set forth in the 3 Court’s December 12, 2017 Order are modified as follows: 4 Close of Expert Discovery: 5/19/18 5 Close of Rebuttal Expert Discovery: 6/19/18 6 Fact Discovery Cutoff: 6/19/18 7 Motions to be filed by: 7/10/18 8 9 10 11 12 3/6/18 DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________ United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 33086608.1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joint Stipulation and Proposed 6 Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND MOTION DATES

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?