Tyco Thermal Controls, LLC v. Redwood Industrials et al

Filing 81

ORDER APPROVING 80 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO TAKE DEPOSITION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 10/28/2009. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GLENN FRIEDMAN, SB# 10442 PAUL DESROCHERS, SB#214855 ROBERT A. FARRELL, SB#107461 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP One Sansome St., Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415.362.2580 Fax: 415.434.0882 **E-Filed 10/28/2009** Attorneys for Defendants, Cross-Defendants and Cross-Claimants CARLISLE COMPANIES INC., CARLISLE CORPORATION and TENSOLITE COMPANY, sued erroneously herein as TENSOLITE INSULATED WIRE PACIFIC DIVISION, INC. and TENSOLITE INSULATED WIRE COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 TYCO THERMAL CONTROLS, LLC, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS, Defendants CARLISLE COMPANIES INC., CARLISLE CORPORATION and TENSOLITE COMPANY (collectively referred to as "CARLISLE") noticed a deposition in this action for a non-party fact witness, Earth Tech, Inc., on October 23, 2009 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 30 and 45; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court's Order, the discovery cut-off date in this action is November 9, 2009; and WHEREAS, the corporate designee for Earth Tech, Inc. cannot appear for deposition in this action until after the November 9, 2009 discovery cut-off date due to scheduling conflicts. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) REDWOOD INDUSTRIALS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ ) ) AND RELATED COUNTER AND ) CROSS-ACTIONS ) ) CASE NO. C 06 07164 JF RS STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO TAKE DEPOSITION; [PROPOSED] ----------------ORDER Trial Date: April 23, 2010 Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel Dept.: Courtroom 3 ACTION FILED: November 17, 2006 BR ISB O IS LEW IS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 28 48 44 -10 39 -94 93 .1 1 STIPULATION TO EXT E N D TIME TO TAKE CER T A I N DEPOSITIONS (CASE NO . C06 07164 JF RS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PURSUANT TO Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 29, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties to this action through their respective counsel of record that the deposition of Earth Tech, Inc. can be conducted on a mutually agreeable date after the November 9, 2009 discovery cut off date. SO STIPULATED. Dated: October 27, 2009 STANZLER, FUNDERBURK & CASTELLON, LLP /s/ Jordan S. Stanzler Jordan S. Stanzler Counsel for Plaintiff TYCO THERMAL CONTROLS, LLC Dated: October 27, 2009 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP /s/ Robert Farrell 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Dated: October 27, 2009 GORDON & REES, LLP /s/ Mordecai Boone Mordecai D.Boone Counsel for Defendants, Counter-claimants and Cross-defendants ROWE INDUSTRIES (as alleged successor in interest to Defendants COLEMAN CABLE & WIRE CO., PACIFIC TRANSFORMER CO.; HILL MAGNETICS, INC.; and HILL INDUSTRIES, INC.) 48 44 -10 39 -94 93 .1 Robert Farrell Counsel for Defendants, Cross-Defendants and CrossClaimants CARLISLE COMPANIES INC., CARLISLE CORPORATION and TENSOLITE COMPANY (sued erroneously herein as TENSOLITE INSULATED WIRE PACIFIC DIVISION, INC. and TENSOLITE INSULATED WIRE COMPANY) Dated: October 27, 2009 FOLGER LEVIN & KAHN, LLP /s/ Margaret R. Dolbaum Margaret R. Dolbaum Counsel for Defendants, Counter-claimants and Cross-defendants REDWOOD INDUSTRIALS, ROLAND LAMPERT and AUDREY LAMPERT BR ISB O IS LEW IS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 28 2 STIPULATION TO EXT E N D TIME TO TAKE CER T A I N DEPOSITIONS (CASE NO . C06 07164 JF RS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 October 28 DATED: _________________, 2009 ________________________________ HON. JEREMY FOGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IT IS SO ORDERED BR ISB O IS LEW IS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 28 48 44 -10 39 -94 93 .1 3 STIPULATION TO EXT E N D TIME TO TAKE CER T A I N DEPOSITIONS (CASE NO . C06 07164 JF RS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 FEDERAL COURT PROOF OF SERVICE Tyco Thermal Controls, LLC v. Redwood Industrials, et al. - Case No. C 06 07164 JF RS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN JOSE: At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My business address is One Sansome Street, 14th Floor, San Francisco, California. I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. On October 27, 2009, I served the following document(s): STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO TAKE DEPOSITION; [PROPOSED] ORDER I served the documents on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable) by the following means: [X] (BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. mdollbaum@fl k.com; esuzukaw@flk.com kglover@gordonrees.com nwood@flk.com desrochers@lbbslaw.com tmorimoto@sfcfirm.com Daniel_Bowling@cand.uscourts.gov jstanzler@sfcfirm.com Margaret R. Dollbaum Kristine Glover Nathanial John Wood Paul A. Desrochers Teresa R. Morimoto Daniel Bowling Jordan S. Stanzler [X] (BY COURT'S CM/ECF SYSTEM) Pursuant to Local Rule, I electronically filed the documents with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of that filing to the persons listed above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the above is true and correct. Executed on October 27, 2009, at San Francisco, California. ____/s/ Karen Binayas_______ Karen Binayas BR ISB O IS LEW IS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 28 48 44 -10 39 -94 93 .1 4 STIPULATION TO EXT E N D TIME TO TAKE CER T A I N DEPOSITIONS (CASE NO . C06 07164 JF RS)

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?