Boyd v. Accuray, Inc

Filing 59

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting #54 Stipulation.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

Case5:11-cv-01644-LHK Document54 Filed04/18/12 Page1 of 3

MEIR J. WESTREICH [CSB #73133]
Attorney at Law
2 221 East Walnut, Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
3 626-440-9906 / FAX: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
1

4

Attorney for Plaintiff

5

Peter C. McMahon [CSB #161841]
Katherine Debski [CSB #271528]
MCMAHON SEREPCALLP
7 985 Industrial Road, Suite 201
San Carlos, Ca 94070
8 TEL: [phone] / FAX: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
6

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14

MICHAEL E. BOYD,

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17

ACCURAY, INC.; DOES 1 - 50,

18

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 11-01644 LKH
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO REVISE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Motion Hearing Date: May 24, 2012
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom No. 8

///
///
///

24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION / ORDER TO REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case5:11-cv-01644-LHK Document54 Filed04/18/12 Page2 of 3

STIPULATION

1
2

Counsel hereby stipulate as follows:

3

1.

Under the Court’s initial scheduling order, arising from the initial

4

scheduling conference, the date for hearing motions for summary judgment was set

5

for May 17, 2012, with a filing deadline of April 12, 2012, which in turn made

6

response due on April 26, 2012 and reply due May 3, 2012.
2. By stipulation and order, the discovery cutoff date of February 17, 2012 was

7
8

extended to March 19, 2012.

9

3. At a further status conference, the Court on its own motion continued the

10

motion hearing date to May 24, 2012, without altering any of the briefing schedule

11

dates.

12

4. On April 2, 2012, the Court issued its order approving the parties’

13

Stipulation for Further Discovery in Lieu of Motion to Compel, which established

14

response delivery dates for the further discovery, most of them either on April 17 or

15

April 30, 2012. [In Paragraph 4.f thereof, a response delivery date was errantly

16

omitted, and the parties are hereby stipulating that it will be April 30, 2012]. In using

17

the April 30, 2012 date, Plaintiff’s counsel incorrectly assumed that the summary

18

judgment response date had been moved to May 3, 2012.

19

5. In recognition of the aforementioned factors, including the mentioned court

20

approved discovery response delivery times as late as April 30, 2012, the parties

21

hereby stipulate to this application to the Court to extend time for Plaintiff’s response

22

to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to May 3, 2012; and,

23

concomitantly, to extend time for Defendant’s Reply to May 10, 2012.

24

6. With the revised briefing schedule, Plaintiff will thereby have the completed

25

discovery for whatever use it may afford for his response to the summary judgment

26

motion. Conversely, the revisions will not constrict the normal time the Court has for

27

consideration of the completed briefing on the motion.

28
2
STIPULATION / ORDER TO REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case5:11-cv-01644-LHK Document54 Filed04/18/12 Page3 of 3

1

7. The summary judgment motion hearing date remains May 24, 2012, and all

2

other case management dates remain.

3

SO STIPULATED:

4

Dated: April 17, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

5

s/ Meir J. Westreich
____________________________
Meir J. Westreich
Attorney for Plaintiff

6
7
8

Dated: April 17, 2012

MCMAHON SEREPCALLP

9

s/ Peter C. McMahon
_________________________________
By: Peter C. McMahon
Attorneys for Defendant

10
11
12
13

SO ORDERED:

14

Dated: April 26, 2012

15
16

____________________________
Judge of the District Court

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION / ORDER TO REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT