Graifman v. Trend Micro Corporation

Filing 55

STIPULATION AND ORDER 54 Extending Time to Respond to Discovery. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 3/28/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Timothy J. Burke (SBN 181866)
STULL, STULL & BRODY
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90024
[phone]
[phone]
[e-mail]
Gary S. Graifman
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
GRAIFMAN, PC
210 Summit Ave.
Montvale, NJ 07645
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: 201-307-1086
Michael S. Green
GREEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
522 Route 18
P.O. Box 428
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: 732-390-0481

Tod L. Gamlen, State Bar No. 83458
Irene V. Gutierrez, State Bar No. 252927
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
660 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1044
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Mark D. Taylor (pro hac vice)
Matthew McCrary (pro hac vice)
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
2300 Trammell Crow Center
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone:
214 978 3000
Facsimile:
214 978 3099
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
TREND MICRO, INC. (USA) sued herein as
TREND MICRO CORPORATION

Attorneys for Plaintiff
BRIAN GRAIFMAN

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19
20

SAN JOSE DIVISION
BRIAN GRAIFMAN, on Behalf of Himself, All
Others Similarly Situated, and the General
Public,

21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. CV11-02488 RMW
STIPULATION AND ORDER
[] EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO DISCOVERY
Complaint Filed: March 2, 2011

TREND MICRO CORPORATION, and DOES
1 through 10, Inclusive,
Defendants.

26
27
28
Baker & McKenzie LLP
660 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304
[phone]

1
Case No. CV11-02488 RMW
STIPULATION AND ORDER [] EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

STIPULATION

1
2

Plaintiff BRIAN GRAIFMAN (including any and all other persons that he may be

3

determined to represent) (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant TREND MICRO INC. (USA)(“Trend Micro”),

4

by and through their respective counsel, enter into this Stipulation.

5

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2011, the Parties filed a Stipulation and Order Extending Time

6

to Respond to First Amended Complaint and Discovery, providing that Defendant was to answer

7

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and serve responses to Plaintiff’s Revised First Set of Requests for

8

Production of Documents and Revised First Set of Interrogatories by December 28, 2011.

9

WHEREAS, the Court approved the December 9, 2011 Stipulation referred to above and

10

entered an order thereon on January 10, 2012 (Dkt. No. 51)(“the January 10 Scheduling Order”).

11

WHEREAS, on December 28, 2011, Trend Micro served its Responses and Objections to

12

Plaintiff’s Revised First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Revised First Set of

13

Interrogatories.

14
15
16

WHEREAS, Trend Micro served an expert report on Plaintiff on January 13, 2012 that
included a survey by the expert.
WHEREAS, Trend Micro began production of documents on a rolling basis as of January

17

23, 2012, and, based on the information currently available to it, believes that as of April 22, 2012 it

18

will have completed the production of the majority of the documents that it has agreed to produce;

19

however, locating and collecting further documents that may be within the categories of documents

20

that Trend Micro has agreed to produce has taken longer than expected for a variety of reasons,

21

including, but not limited to, the fact that Trend Micro has had to restore and search one or more

22

decomissioned servers in a foreign country and search for email files dating back many years,

23

including email files of employees who no longer work for said defendant.

24
25
26

WHEREAS, Defendant’s counsel now believe that production of class-related material
requested by Plaintiff can be completed by April 22, 2012.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s counsel contend that they cannot conduct depositions of Defendant’s

27

expert, nor the witnesses interviewed by Defendant’s expert, until Plaintiff reviews all documents

28

that Trend Micro produces; and, further, that they cannot properly prepare an expert rebuttal report
2

Baker & McKenzie LLP
660 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304
[phone]

Case No. CV11-02488 RMW
STIPULATION AND ORDER [] EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

1

until the depositions of the persons referred to above are completed, which contentions are disputed

2

by Trend Micro.
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2012; January 27, 2012; February 22, 2012; and March 16,

3
4

2012 the parties met and conferred regarding the oustanding production of Defendant’s documents,

5

Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Report, and discussed whether additional time was needed to complete

6

both.

7

WHEREAS, in order to address the issues of allowing the Parties further time to complete

8

discovery and the review of same, and allowing Plaintiff further time to prepare an expert rebuttal

9

report, without the necessity of filing a motion, the Parties are stipulating to the extensions set forth

10

below from the dates set forth in ¶ 3.a. – g., of the Court’s January 10 Scheduling Order.
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED that:

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

1.

The dates and deadlines for the class certification phase of this action and as set forth

in the January 10, 2012 Scheduling Order at ¶ 3.a.-g., are extended as follows:
a.

Designation of Rebuttal Class Certification Experts – from February 3, 2012
to May 23, 2012;

b. Close of Class Certification Discovery – from February 24, 2012 to June 22,
2012;

18

c. Filing of Class Certification motion –from March 13, 2012 to July 13, 2012;

19

d. Filing of Opposition to Class Certification motion – from April 12, 2012 to

20
21
22
23
24

August 13, 2012;
e. Filing of Reply to Class Certification motion – from May 7, 2012 to
September 13, 2012;
g. Hearing on class certification motion – from June 1, 2012 to October 12,
2012.

25
26
27
28
Baker & McKenzie LLP
660 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304
[phone]

3
Case No. CV11-02488 RMW
STIPULATION AND ORDER [] EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

1
2

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

3
4

Dated: March 21, 2012

BAKER & McKENZIE LLP

5
6

By: /s/ Tod L. Gamlen
Tod L. Gamlen
Attorneys for Defendant
TREND MICRO, INC. (USA) sued herein
as TREND MICRO, CORPORATION

7
8
9

Dated: March 21, 2012

STULL, STULL & BRODY

10
By: /s/ Timothy J. Burke
Timothy J. Burke
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BRIAN GRAIFMAN

11
12
13
14

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE BY TOD L. GAMLEN

15
16

I, Tod L. Gamlen, hereby attest that I am one of the attorneys for Trend Micro Incorporated

17

(USA), and, as the ECF user and filer of this document, I attest that, pursuant to General Order No.

18

45(X)(B), concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Timothy J. Burke, the

19

above signatory.

20
21

Dated: March 21, 2012

By: /s/ Tod L. Gamlen

22
ORDER []

23
24

Pursuant to stipulation IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
Dated: March _____, 20121
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27
28
Baker & McKenzie LLP
660 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304
[phone]

DALDMS/706962.8

4
Case No. CV11-02488 RMW
STIPULATION AND ORDER [] EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY