Almeida v. Google, Inc.

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER 24 Modifying Case Schedule: Motion Hearing on Class Certification set for 10/23/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 4/2/09. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - #184325 DAVID J. SILBERT - #173128 ALYSE BERTENTHAL - #253012 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. BRIAN S. KABATECK SBN 152054 RICHARD L. KELLNER SBN 171416 ALFREDO TORRIJOS SBN 222458 KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID ALMEIDA *E-FILED - 4/2/09* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SAN JOSE DIVISION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, DAVID ALMEIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case No. C 08-02088 RMW STIPULATION AND [] ORDER MODIFYING CASE SCHEDULE 437448.01 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER MODIFYING CASE SCHEDULE CASE NO. C 08-02088 RMW 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 28 WHEREAS, at the case management conference on August 15, 2008, the parties jointly submitted a proposed schedule which the Court subsequently adopted; WHEREAS, since that time, the parties have been diligently pursuing discovery; WHEREAS, discovery in this matter is taking longer than the parties originally anticipated; WHEREAS, Google has to date produced approximately 180,000 pages of documents, but believes that additional information still remains to be identified, collected, and produced in response to Plaintiff's document requests; WHEREAS, no previous extensions to the case schedule have been requested; NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the agreement of the parties: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT, the Scheduling and Case Management Order should be amended to adjust the dates by approximately 120 days, with new dates set as follows: Plaintiff shall file and serve (1) any expert report(s) on class certification; and (2) his motion for class certification no later than August 3, 2009. Defendant shall file and serve (1) any expert report(s) on class certification; and (2) its opposition to class certification no later than September 4, 2009. Plaintiff shall file and serve his reply in support of the motion for class certification no later than September 21, 2009. The parties shall conduct a mediation on or before October 9, 2009. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification before the Court shall take place on October 23, 2009, or at another date set by the Court. Non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than March 2, 2010. Expert opening reports shall be submitted by March 9, 2010. Expert opposition reports shall be submitted by March 23, 2010. Expert reply reports shall be submitted by April 6, 2010. Expert discovery shall be completed no later than April 13, 2010. 1 437448.01 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER MODIFYING CASE SCHEDULE CASE NO. C 08-02088 RMW 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 28 SO STIPULATED. Dated: ___________________ KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP By: /s/ Alfredo Torrijos __________________ ALFREDO TORRIJOS Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class DAVID ALMEIDA Dated: ___________________ KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP By: /s/ David J. Silbert ___________________ DAVID J. SILBERT Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. [] ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. 4/2 Dated: ____________, 2009 ______________________________________ HON. RONALD M. WHYTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 437448.01 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER MODIFYING CASE SCHEDULE CASE NO. C 08-02088 RMW

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?