Baba v. Hewlett Packard Company

Filing 94

THIRD STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 93 ENLARGMENT OF TIME RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS' ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/26/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Barbara Quinn Smith (Ohio Bar 0055328)
(Pro Hac Vice)
MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO, P.C.
9930 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, CA 90071-3197 Telephone:
213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520

9
10
11
12

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

13
14
15

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

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

24
25
26

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

CASE NO: C 09 5946-RS-HRL

THIRD STIPULATION
REGARDING ENLARGMENT
OF TIME RELATED TO
PLAINTIFFS’ ANTICIPATED
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION
MODIFIED BY THE COURT

27
28
-1THIRD 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 by 45 days, 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
11
12

WHEREAS, at that conference, the Court further requested that the parties submit an
agreed upon briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification;
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2011, the Parties submitted the following stipulated briefing
schedule for Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for class certification:

13
14
15
16

Deadline for filing of anticipated class February 8, 2012
certification motion
HP’s opposition to class certification due
March 22, 2012
Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification April 19, 2012
due

17
18

WHEREAS, the Parties previously sought, and were granted a 60 day extension of the

19

original schedule to allow them time to resolve discovery disputes and the following schedule

20

was entered:

21

Deadline for filing of anticipated class April 6, 2012
certification motion
HP’s opposition to class certification due
May 21, 2012

22
23
24

Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification June 18, 2012
due

25
26
27
28
-2THIRD STIPULATION REGARDING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS’
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: C 09 5946-RS-HRL

1

WHEREAS, the Parties previously sought, and were granted another extension in order

2

for Defendant to examine each of Named Plaintiffs’ computers and conduct their depositions

3

before Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification was filed;

4

Deadline for filing of anticipated class May 4, 2012
certification motion
HP’s opposition to class certification due
June 22, 2012

5
6
7

Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification July 20, 2012
due

8
9

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint on April 11, 2012, which

10

seeks to substitute Tina Baba for her husband, David Baba, as Named Plaintiff and add Jon

11

Taylor, an Ohio resident, as an additional Named Plaintiff. Plaintiffs’ also seek to reassert

12

violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

13
14
15
16

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs anticipate Defendant will file a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint if Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint is granted.
WHEREAS, this proposed extension will allow the Court to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Amend the Complaint and rule on Defendant’s anticipated Motion to Dismiss.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the Parties hereby

21

stipulate to, and request the Court’s approval of, a 45 day extension of the class certification

22

briefing schedule:

23

Deadline for filing of anticipated class June 18, 2012
certification motion
HP’s opposition to class certification due
August 6, 2012

24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs’ reply in support of class certification September 3, 2012
due
Hearing on anticipated motion for class To be determined by the Court
September 20, 2012
certification

28
-3THIRD STIPULATION REGARDING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS’
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: C 09 5946-RS-HRL

1

Dated: April 26, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

2

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

3

Thomas K. Caldwell (Indiana Bar 16001-49)
(Pro Hac Vice)
T. John Kirk (Indiana Bar 27202-29)
(Pro Hac Vice)
MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO, P.C.
10100 Lantern Road
Suite 150
Fishers, IN 46037
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 317-598-2050
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

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

13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17
18

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

19
20

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
Kristofor T. Henning

21

By: /s/ Kristofor T. Henning
Kristofor T. Henning

22
23

Attorneys for Hewlett-Packard Co.

24
25
26
27
28
-4-

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

1

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

4/26/12
Dated: __________________________

4

____________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5THIRD STIPULATION REGARDING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS’
ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION - CASE NO: C 09 5946-RS-HRL