Lazebnik v. Apple Inc.
Filing
42
ORDER GRANTING 41 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Fact Discovery Deadline filed by Apple Inc., ***9/8/2014 Discovery Deadlines terminated. Fact Discovery due by 9/29/2014. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/25/2014. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
MATTHEW D. POWERS (S.B. #212682)
mpowers@omm.com
VICTORIA L. WEATHERFORD (S.B. #267499)
vweatherford@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-3823
Telephone:
(415) 984-8700
Facsimile:
(415) 984-8701
Attorneys for Defendant
APPLE INC.
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11
12
NOAM LAZEBNIK, M.D., on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated,
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE, INC.,
Case No. 5:13-CV-04145-EJD
JUDGE EDWARD J. DAVILA
XXXXXXX
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING FACT
DISCOVERY DEADLINE
Complaint filed: September 6, 2013
Defendant.
Trial date:
None set
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING FACT DISCOVERY
DEADLINE
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-04145-EJD
1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, Plaintiff Noam Lazebnik, M.D.
2
(“Plaintiff”), and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”) hereby submit this Stipulation
3
Extending the Fact Discovery Deadline listed in this Court’s Stipulation and Order Extending
4
Deadlines in Case Management Order [Dkt. 36] by twenty one (21) days, to September 29, 2014,
5
for the limited purposes of allowing Plaintiff to take: (1) the deposition of Apple employee Josh
6
Lippman, which is currently scheduled for September 16, 2014; (2) any further depositions that
7
become reasonably necessarily in light of the testimony of Mr. Lippman (if any); and (3) the
8
depositions of Apple employees Larry Phillips and Mark Buckley (if necessary).
9
As set forth in this Stipulation and the accompanying Declaration of Victoria L.
10
Weatherford (“Weatherford Decl.”), the reason for this stipulated request is that Plaintiff has been
11
unable to depose Mr. Lippman before the fact discovery deadline due to Mr. Lippman’s
12
scheduling constraints. The parties have previously stipulated to extend Apple’s time to respond
13
to Plaintiff’s Complaint on two occasions, the case management deadlines on two occasions,
14
including the fact discovery deadline specifically on one of these occasions, and the briefing
15
schedule for Apple’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Accordingly,
16
WHEREAS, Plaintiff served its first set of discovery on Apple on January 8, 2014, Apple
17
served its objections and responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery on February 10, 2014, the
18
parties exchanged initial disclosures on January 24, 2014, Apple served its first set of discovery
19
on Plaintiff on July 3, 2014 and its amended responses to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery requests
20
on July 25, 2014, and Plaintiff served its objections and responses to Apple’s first set of discovery
21
on August 6, 2014;
22
WHEREAS, Plaintiff served its first production of documents on Apple on August 6,
23
2014, and Apple served its first production of documents on Plaintiff on August 8, 2014, and its
24
second document production on August 15, 2014;
25
26
WHEREAS, Apple deposed named plaintiff Dr. Noam Lazebnik on August 11, 2014, and
third party witness Jeremy Tor on August 13, 2014;
27
28
-2-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING FACT DISCOVERY
DEADLINE
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-04145-EJD
1
2
WHEREAS, Plaintiff will be unable to take the deposition of Josh Lippman before the
September 8, 2014 fact discovery deadline because of the witness’s schedule;
3
WHEREAS, although the Parties anticipate that the deposition of Mr. Lippman will be the
4
only other deposition necessary in this matter, since Mr. Lippman has not yet been deposed
5
Plaintiff reserves his right to seek depositions of: (1) Mr. Phillips, (2) Mr. Buckley, and/or (3)
6
others whose testimony becomes reasonably necessarily in light of the testimony of Mr. Lippman
7
(if any).
8
The parties hereby STIPULATE and agree, subject to Court approval, to extend the
9
September 8, 2014 fact discovery deadline by twenty-one (21) days, to September 29, 2014, for
10
the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to take the deposition of Josh Lippman (and the other
11
depositions noted above, if necessary). The extension will not extend the fact discovery period
12
for any other purpose and all other deadlines in the Stipulation and Order Extending Deadlines in
13
the Case Management Order [Dkt. No. 37] will remain unchanged.
14
15
Respectfully submitted,
16
Dated: August 22, 2014
22
/s/ Victoria L. Weatherford
MATTHEW D. POWERS (CA Bar No. 212682)
VICTORIA L. WEATHERFORD (CA Bar No.
267499)
O’MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 984-8700
(415) 984-8701 (FAX)
mpowers@omm.com
vweatherford@omm.com
23
Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING FACT DISCOVERY
DEADLINE
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-04145-EJD
1
2
Dated: August 22, 2014
3
4
5
6
7
/s/ Matthew R. Wilson
MATTHEW R. WILSON (CA Bar No. 290473)
MICHAEL J. BOYLE, JR. (CA Bar No. 258560)
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 224-6000
(614) 224-6066 (FAX)
mwilson@meyerwilson.com
mboyle@meyerwilson.com
13
NICHOLAS DICELLO (OH Bar No. 0075745)
(admitted Pro Hac Vice)
DANIEL FRECH (OH Bar No. 0082737)
(admitted Pro Hac Vice)
SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
(216) 696-3232
(216) 696-3924 (FAX)
ndicello@spanglaw.com
dfrech@spanglaw.com
14
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
25
Dated: August __, 2014
____________________________________
Hon. Edward J. Davila
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING FACT DISCOVERY
DEADLINE
CASE NO. 5:13-CV-04145-EJD
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?