Siegel v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 38

STIPULATION AND ORDER (AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT) to continue the hearing on Defendant's motion for Summary Judgment to June 25, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on April 22, 2013. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2013)

*E-FILED: April 22, 2013*

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

KAREN E. FORD, ESQ. (SNB 88358)
[e-mail]
SW Ocean Ave & Mission, Suite 208
P.O. Box 287
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921-0287
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff
PETER SIEGEL
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
MELINDA S. RIECHERT, (SBN 65504)
[e-mail]
2 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
ADELMISE ROSEMÉ WARNER (SBN 215385)
[e-mail]
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20

PETER SIEGEL,
Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24

Case No. CV 12-03787 HRL

vs.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Defendant.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON
DEFENDANT HEWLETT-PACKARD
COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT TO JUNE 18, 2013

(MODIFIED BY THE COURT)

25
26
27
28

M ORGAN , L EWIS &
B OCKIUS LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
PALO ALTO

STIP. AND PROP. ORDER TO CONT.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING /
CASE NO. CV 12-03787 HRL

1

WHEREAS, on April 10, 2013, the Court issued an order continuing the hearing on

2

Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment

3

(See Docket Entry # 35);

4
5

WHEREAS, this Order was based on a Motion by Plaintiff Peter Siegel (“Plaintiff”) to
continue the hearing;

6
7

WHEREAS, Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion, and had agreed to a
continuance to May 28, 2013, a date on which counsel for all parties were available;

8

WHEREAS, the Court continued the hearing to June 4, 2013, rather than May 28;

9

WHEREAS, lead counsel for Defendant is not available on June 4, 2013 to argue the

10

motion due to a previously scheduled depositions in another matter;

11

WHEREAS, the next date on which counsel for all parties are available is June 18, 2013;

12

WHEREAS, after meeting and conferring, the Parties have agreed to submit a stipulation

13

and joint request to the Court to continue the hearing to June 18, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.

14
15

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Rules 6-1(a) and 7-12, and based on the attached
Declaration of Melinda S. Riechert, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

16
17

1. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall be heard at
25
10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 18, 2013;

18

2. Any opposition by Plaintiff to the Motion for Summary Judgment will be filed and

19

served no later than June 4, 2013;

20

3. Any reply by Defendant will be filed and served no later than June 11, 2013.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

STIP. AND PROP. ORDER TO CONT.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING /
CASE NO. CV 12-03787 HRL

1
2
3

IT IS SO STIPULATED:
Dated: April 16, 2013

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
MELINDA S. RIECHERT
ADELMISE ROSEMÉ WARNER

4
5

By s/Melinda S. Riechert
Melinda S. Riechert
Adelmise Rosemé Warner
Attorneys for Defendant
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY

6
7
8
9
10

Dated: April 16, 2013

KAREN E. FORD, ESQ.

11
12

By s/Karen E. Ford
Karen E. Ford
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PETER SIEGEL

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

STIP. AND PROP. ORDER TO CONT.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING /
CASE NO. CV 12-03787 HRL

1
2
3
4

AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT,

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
^
Dated:

April 22, 2013

5

HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

STIP. AND PROP. ORDER TO CONT.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING /
CASE NO. CV 12-03787 HRL