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)

Download PDF
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?