Baba v. Hewlett Packard Company

Filing 89

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER RE ENLARGEMENT OF TIME RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS' ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/26/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Barbara Quinn Smith (Ohio Bar 0055328)
(pro hac vice)
MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO
9933 Johnnycake Ridge Road
Suite 3F
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 440-848-8175
[e-mail]
(Additional Counsel listed below)

7

Attorneys for David Baba and Ray Ritz

8

Samuel Liversidge, SBN 180578
[e-mail]
David Han, SBN 247789
[e-mail]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333
South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071-3197 Telephone:
213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Kristofor T. Henning (Pro Hac Vice)
Franco A. Corrado (Pro Hac Vice)
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 215.963.5001
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Hewlett-Packard
Company

DAVID BABA and RAY RITZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
PLAINTIFFS,
-vsHEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY,
DEFENDANT.

25
26

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

CASE NO: C 09 5946-RS-HRL

SECOND STIPULATION
REGARDING ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME RELATED TO
PLAINTIFFS’ ANTICIPATED
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

27
28

|
-1-

SECOND STIPULATION REGARDING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS’
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: C 09 5946-RS-HRL

1

Through this Stipulated Request and [Proposed] Order, Plaintiffs David Baba and Ray

2

Ritz (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) stipulate and agree to

3

continue the hearing on Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification and to extend the

4

schedule for the related briefing as set forth below, and jointly request that the Court approve this

5

extension pursuant to L.R. 6-2.

6

WHEREAS, during the Case Management Conference held on August 11, 2011, the

7

parties proposed a hearing date of May 10, 2012 for Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class

8

certification;

9
10

WHEREAS, at that conference, the Court further requested that the parties submit an
agreed upon briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification;

11
12
13
14

WHEREAS, on August 18, 2011, the parties submitted the following stipulated briefing
schedule for Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification:
Case Schedule

16

Deadline for filing of anticipated class February 8, 2012
certification motion
HP’s opposition to class certification due
March 22, 2012

17

Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification April 19, 2012

18

due

15

19
20
21
22
23

WHEREAS, since that time, the parties have engaged, and continue to engage, in formal
discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ claims and anticipated motion for class certification;
WHEREAS, the parties previously sought, and were granted a 60 day extension of the
original schedule to allow them time to resolve discovery disputes.

24

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2012, Defendants noticed Named Plaintiffs for deposition;

25

WHEREAS, Defendant desires to examine each Named Plaintiff’s computer before

26

conducting the depositions;

27
28

-2-

SECOND STIPULATION REGARDING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS’
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: C 09 5946-RS-HRL

1
2
3
4

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff’s counsel’s schedules do not allow for all of those
events to take place prior to April 6, 2012;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs desire to have the depositions completed prior to moving for class
certification;

5

WHEREAS, HP does not oppose Plaintiffs’ request for an extension, provided that

6

Plaintiffs agree not to serve additional discovery prior to moving for class certification and

7

Plaintiffs have agreed not to serve additional discovery prior to moving for class certification;

8
9
10

ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the parties hereby
stipulate to, and request the Court’s approval of, the following extended class certification
briefing schedule:

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Case Schedule
Deadline for filing of anticipated class May 4, 2012
certification motion
HP’s opposition to class certification due
June 22, 2012
Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification July 20, 2012
due
Hearing on anticipated motion for class To be determined by the Court
August 2, 2012
certification
Dated: March 23, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

20

/s/ _Barbara Quinn Smith_____________
Barbara Quinn Smith (Ohio Bar 0055328)

21
22

Thomas K.Caldwell (Indiana Bar 16001-49)
(pro hac vice)
T. John Kirk (Indiana Bar 27202-29)
(Pro Hac Vice)
MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO
10100 Lantern Road
Suite 150
Fishers, IN 46038
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 317-598-2050

23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-

SECOND STIPULATION REGARDING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS’
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: C 09 5946-RS-HRL

1
2
3

Scott R. Kaufman, SBN 190129
1400 Coleman Ave., Suite F-26
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
9

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Samuel G. Liversidge David S. Han

10
11

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Kristofor T. Henning

12

By: /s/ Kristofor T. Henning
Kristofor T. Henning
Attorneys for Hewlett-Packard Co.

13
14
15

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

3/26/12
Dated: __________________________

____________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-

SECOND STIPULATION REGARDING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS’
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: C 09 5946-RS-HRL