Navarro -v- Arrow Electronics

Filing 26

STIPULATION AND ORDER AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT Extending Pre-Trial Deadlines re 25 Stipulation. Close of All Discovery due by 11/15/2011. Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions due by 2/10/2012. Preliminary Pretrial Conference statemetns due 3/16/2012. Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 3/30/2012 11:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/2/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2011)

1 AARON ROBLAN, State Bar No. 244308
[e-mail]

2 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.

S

ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC.

9
10

GERALD EMANUEL, State Bar No. 61049
[e-mail]
HINKLE, JACHIMOWICZ, POINTER & EMANUEL
2007 West Hedding Street, Suite 100
San Jose, California 95128
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

dw
J u d ge E

ER

H

8

RT

7

a rd J . D

R NIA

NO

6 Attorneys for Defendant

DERED
SO OR
IT IS
DIFIED
AS MO

av i l a

FO

[phone]
[phone]

A

5

Telephone:
Facsimile:

LI

UNIT
ED

One Market Plaza

4 San Francisco, California 94105

RT
U
O

3 Steuart Tower, Suite 1300

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

11
12

Attorneys for Plaintiff
KATHY NAVARRO

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
KATHY NAVARRO, an individual,

17
Plaintiff,

18
v.

19

Case No. C 10-03210 EJD
STIPULATION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL
DEADLINES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC., a New York

20 corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

21
22

Defendant Arrow Electronics, Inc. (“Arrow”) and Plaintiff Kathy Navarro (collectively

23 referred to as “the Parties”) jointly state, stipulate and agree as follows:
24

(1)

On June 23, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the Court set certain

25 discovery, dispositive motion hearing and pretrial conference deadlines. The dates requested by
26 the parties in that stipulation were based on the fact that the parties were scheduled to have a full27 day private mediation with Vivien Williamson on June 28, 2011.
28

STIPULATION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
1

Case No. C 10-03210 EJD

1

(2)

The parties completed the mediation with Ms. Williamson as scheduled on June 28,

2 2011. Although the parties did not resolve the case at the mediation, the parties have continued to
3 work with Ms. Williamson, via telephone exchanges, in an effort to resolve the matter. Although
4 no resolution has yet been reached, the parties are still working with Ms. Williamson in an effort to
5 reach a settlement.
6

(3)

Due to these continued settlement discussions, the parties have put off engaging in

7 further discovery, to keep down costs and attorneys’ fees in the event that they were able to reach a
8 settlement. Although the parties are still hopeful that they will be able to reach a resolution, they
9 also realize that it is necessary to re-commence discovery efforts, so that they will be able to
10 complete discovery without undue delay in the event that they are not able to resolve the case
11 through settlement.
12

(4)

To that end, the parties have completed service of all contemplated written

13 discovery. However, Defendant is still awaiting responses from Plaintiff to last set of discovery
14 that was served. Therefore, although the parties do not require any additional time for service of
15 written discovery, Defendant may still need time to file a motion to compel based on Plaintiff’s
16 outstanding discovery responses, in the event such a motion is necessary based on those discovery
17 responses.
18

(5)

Moreover, the parties are currently working together to schedule the remaining

19 depositions to be conducted. Plaintiff has indicated that she intends to depose Jeff Heffernan, Lori
20 Walker, Faith Atkins, and Ada Hunt. Defendant has noticed the depositions of two of Plaintiff’s
21 treating physicians, Dr. Robert Gould and Dr. Manika Kaushal. Except for Jeff Heffernan, all of
22 these outstanding depositions will be of witnesses who are not under the control of either party, as
23 they are of either (1) former employees of Defendant or (2) third party witnesses who have never
24

been under the control of either party. Moreover, as for Plaintiff’s current or former treating

25

physicians, not only are they not under the control of either party, but they have also informed

26

Defendant that they have very limited availability to be deposed. Therefore, although the parties

27

are working diligently to schedule these depositions, the depositions will likely not be scheduled

28

STIPULATION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
2

Case No. C 10-03210 EJD

1 and completed until the end of October, based on the unavailability of the deponents.
(6)

2

Additionally, on August 15, 2011, Defendant called the Court to reserve a hearing

3 on its intended dispositive motion on October 28, 2011, in accordance with the existing scheduling
4 order. Defendant was informed at that time that the first available hearing date on the Court’s
5 calendar for a dispositive motion is February 10, 2012. Defendant has now reserved that date, as
6 the first available date on the Court’s calendar, for a hearing on its contemplated dispositive
7 motion.
(7)

8

Finally, Aaron Roblan, who is the lead trial counsel and responsible attorney on this

9 matter for Defendant, has been effectively unable to work since early August due to a serious
10 medical condition. Mr. Roblan began experiencing debilitating pain in the beginning of August,
11 which resulted in numerous medical appointments throughout the first weeks of August and an
12 eventual admittance to the hospital on August 18th. Mr. Roblan was in the hospital for almost a full
13

week, and at this point it is unclear when he will be released to return to work.
In consideration of all of the foregoing, the Parties jointly request this Court issue an order

14

15 extending the deadlines set forth in the Court’s June 28, 2011 Order, and establishing the following
16 deadlines:
17
18

Close of All Discovery

November 15, 2011

19

Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions

February 10, 2012

20

(per Court’s availability and reservation)

21

Preliminary Pretrial Conference, if necessary

March 30, 2012

22

Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statements

March 16, 2012

23

(At least 10 days before conference)

24

Trial

25

The Court will or as soon
April 30, 2012,set a trial
schedule as is Preliminary
thereafterat the available on the
Pretrial Conference
Court’s calendar

26
27
28

STIPULATION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
3

Case No. C 10-03210 EJD

1
2

DATED: August 29, 2011

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART

3
4

By:

5
6

/s/ Erica Rocush (for)
Aaron Roblan
Attorneys for Defendant
ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC.

7
8

DATED: August 29, 2011

HINKLE, JACHIMOWICZ, POINTER &
EMANUEL

9
By:

10
11

/s/ Gerald Emanuel
Gerald Emanuel
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KATHY NAVARRO

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED:AS MODIFIED.
September 2,
Dated: ________________________, 2011 __________________________________
Honorable Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge

17
10839988.1 (OGLETREE)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
4

Case No. C 10-03210 EJD