Levitte v. Google Inc.

Filing 41

SCHEDULING ORDER FOR CLASS DISCOVERY: Deadline to File Consolidated Amended Complaint due 4/6/2009, Deadline to File Answer to Consolidated AmendedComplaint due 4/30/2009, Close of Class Discovery set for 11/2/2009. Interim Case Management Conference statement due 9/4/2009. Inteirm Case Management Conference set for 9/14/2009 10:00 AM. Class Certification Motion Hearing set for 12/7/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. Please see Order for further specifics. Signed by Judge James Ware on 2/25/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2009)

Download PDF
Levitte v. Google Inc. Doc. 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 / Upon filing, this case was scheduled for a case management conference on March 2, 2009. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court, the parties conferred and duly submitted a Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order. Based on their joint submission, it appears that a schedule for the case can be set without the necessity of an appearance at this time. Accordingly, the case management conference is VACATED. The Court finds good cause to bifurcate discovery between class and merits at this time. Accordingly, the schedule set forth below pertains only to class discovery. The parties are ordered to comply with the following schedule: CASE SCHEDULE Deadline to File Consolidated Amended Complaint Deadline to File Answer to Consolidated Amended Complaint Close of Class Discovery April 6, 2009 April 30, 2009 November 2, 2009 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION In re Google AdWords Litigation No. C 08-03369 JW SCHEDULING ORDER FOR CLASS DISCOVERY Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Interim Case Management Conference Interim Case Management Statement The Statement shall update the Court on the parties' progress toward completion of class discovery and any efforts to resolve the case. Hearing on Motion for Class Certification1 September 14, 2009 at 10 a.m. September 4, 2009 December 7, 2009 at 9 a.m. None of the dates set in this Order may be changed without an order of the Court made after a motion is filed pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of Court. Standing Order to Lodge Printed Copy of "ECF" Papers 1. In all cases, including cases covered by the Electronic Case Filing System of the Court "ECF," when filing papers in connection with any motion or any pretrial conference, in addition to filing the paper electronically, the filing parties shall lodge with the Clerk's Office a printed copy of the papers, in an envelop clearly marked "Chamber's Copy ­ Lodged for the Chambers of Judge James Ware." The "Chamber's Copy" envelop must state the case name and case number and be delivered on or before the close of the next court day following the day the papers are filed electronically. See Standing Order Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases. Compliance with Discovery Plan and Reference to Magistrate Judge 2. The Court adopts the Discovery Plan proposed by the parties in their Joint Case Management Statement. The parties are ordered to comply with the discovery plan. Any disputes with respect to the implementation of the discovery plan and all disclosure or discovery disputes are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. In addition, any disputes pertaining to service or joinder of parties or claims are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Document Management During Pretrial Discovery and Electronic Evidence Presentation 3. This Court has available a digital and video electronic evidence presentation system. Before commencement of pretrial discovery, the parties are ordered to familiarize The parties shall notice their Motion for Class Certification in accordance with the Civil Local Rules of this Court. 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 themselves with the system, and to meet and confer about whether the case will involve voluminous documentary. If so, as the parties identify documentary material which is likely to be used as trial exhibits, the parties are ordered to electronically store these materials in a fashion which will facilitate displaying them electronically during the trial. The parties are reminded that Civil L.R. 302(b) requires sequential numbering of exhibits during depositions and that numbering must be maintained for those exhibits throughout the litigation. Each proposed exhibit shall be pre-marked for identification. All exhibits shall be marked with numerals. The parties shall meet and confer on a division which will avoid duplication (e.g., Plaintiff: 1-99,000; Defendant #1: 100,000-299,999; Defendant #2: 300,000-500,000). Disclosure of Expert Witnesses 4. Any party wishing to present expert witness testimony with respect to a claim or a defense shall lodge with the Court and serve on all other parties the name, address, qualifications, résumé and a written report which complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) 63 days before close of discovery. Expert witness disclosure must be made with respect to a person who is either (a) specially retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702 or (b) a regular employee or agent or treating physician who may be called to provide expert opinion testimony. 5. The parties are also required to lodge any supplemental reports to which any expert will testify at trial in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). 6. Any party objecting to the qualifications or proposed testimony of an expert must file, serve and notice a motion to exclude the expert or any portion of the expert's testimony in writing in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, for hearing no later than 42 DAYS AFTER BOTH EXPERT AND REBUTTAL EXPERT DISCLOSURES ON A MONDAY (LAW AND MOTION DAY) at 9:00 a.m. and preferably before or on the same day as the discovery cutoff date at 9:00 a.m. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: February 25, 2009 8. 7. Rebuttal Expert Witnesses If the testimony of the expert is intended solely to contradict or rebut opinion testimony on the same subject matter identified by another party, the party proffering a rebuttal expert shall make the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), no later than 49 days prior to discovery cutoff. Limitation on Testimony by Expert Witnesses Unless the parties enter into a written stipulation otherwise, upon timely objection, an expert witness shall be precluded from testifying about any actions or opinions not disclosed prior to the expert's deposition. This is to ensure that all factual material upon which expert opinion may be based and all tests and reports are completed prior to the expert deposition. Unless application is made prior to the close of expert discovery, each party will be limited to calling only one expert witness in each discipline involved in the case. JAMES WARE United States District Judge 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Dustin Lamm Schubert dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com Guido Saveri guido@saveri.com Kimberly Ann Kralowec kkralowec@schubertlawfirm.com Leo Patrick Norton lnorton@cooley.com Michael Graham Rhodes rhodesmg@cooley.com Peter Joel Willsey pwillsey@cooley.com Willem F. Jonckheer wjonckheer@schubert-reed.com Dated: February 25, 2009 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy 5

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?