Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp

Filing 76

ORDER GRANTING 75 STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/31/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2017)

Download PDF
1 LEONARDMEYER LLP Derek J. Meyer (State Bar No.) 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Tel: (310) 220-0331 rmeyer@leonardmeyerllp.com POLSINELLI LLP Noel S. Cohen (State Bar No. 219645) 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 556-1801 ncohen@polsinelli.com 8 LEONARDMEYER LLP John P. Killacky (admitted pro hac vice) 120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 943-4888 jkillacky@leonardmeyerllp.com POLSINELLI PC Stacy A. Carpenter (admitted pro hac vice) 1401 Lawrence Street, Suite 2300 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 572-9300 scarpenter@polsinelli.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kelly Brezoczky POLSINELLI PC Britton L. St. Onge (admitted pro hac vice) 100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63102 Tel: (314) 889-8000 bstonge@polsinelli.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 Attorneys for Defendants Domtar Corporation and Polsinelli PC 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION 17 KELLY BREZOCZKY, an individual, 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 21 22 23 DOMTAR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. PLAINTIFF KELLY BREZOCZKY Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila Courtroom 4, Fifth Floor (“Plaintiff”) and DEFENDANT DOMTAR 24 CORPORATION (“Defendant”), pursuant to Local Rules 6-2, 7-3 and 7-12, jointly submit this 25 stipulation asking the Court to briefly extend the deadlines for: (1) Plaintiff to file her opposition to 26 Domtar Corporation’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and or Adjudication 27 (“Motion,” ECF No. 63); and (2) Defendant to file its reply in support of the Motion. The proposed 28 new dates below would not impact any other deadlines as described below. -1STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD RECITALS 1 2 WHEREAS, on October 17, 2017, Defendant filed the Motion; 3 WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7.3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion is due on 4 5 6 7 8 October 31, 2017; WHEREAS, Plaintiff has requested that Defendant agree to extend Plaintiff’s deadline for filing the opposition to the Motion by one (1) day to November 1, 2017; WHEREAS, Plaintiff has been diligent in preparing its opposition to the Motion but requires additional time for various reason, including but not limited to: 9 a. Plaintiff and former Defendant Polsinelli PC have been engaged in settlement negotiations 10 that successfully resulted in the execution of a settlement agreement and the filing on 11 October 27, 2017, of a stipulation dismissing all claims against Polsinelli PC with prejudice, 12 which was entered by this Court on October 30, 2017 (ECF No. 74); 13 b. Counsel for Plaintiff is lead trial counsel for the plaintiff in a matter styled Gregory Ingalls 14 et al v. Spotify USA Inc., 3:16-cv-03533-WHA, pending before the Honorable William 15 Alsup in the San Francisco Division of this Court. On October 27, 2017, the parties were 16 required to serve their pre-trial disclosures in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 26(a)(3)(C). 18 c. Also in the Ingalls matter, the parties are required to file a joint proposed final pretrial order 19 and other pretrial materials on October 31, 2017, in advance of the pretrial conference set 20 for November 8, 2017. 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, Defendant has agreed to grant Plaintiff one (1) additional day to file her opposition to the Motion on November 1, 2017; WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(c), provided this stipulation is granted, Defendant’s reply in support of the Motion would be due on November 8, 2017; WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to provide Defendant with one (1) additional day to file its reply in support of the Motion on November 9, 2017; 27 28 -2STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD WHEREAS, the dispositive motion deadlines in this case have not been extended with respect 1 2 to the Domtar Motion;1 3 WHEREAS, there is good cause for extending the deadlines as set forth herein; 4 WHEREAS, extending this deadline would not prejudice any party; 5 WHEREAS, extending the deadlines as set forth herein would not affect any other dates in the 6 Amended Pretrial Order in the event the Court accepts the proposed new deadlines below. STIPULATION 7 8 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties that: 9 A. Plaintiff shall file her opposition to the Motion on November 1, 2017; and B. Defendant shall file its reply in support of the Motion on November 9, 2017. 10 11 Dated: October 30, 2017 12 LEONARDMEYER LLP By: /s/ Derek J. Meyer Derek J. Meyer Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 14 15 16 Dated: October 30, 2017 DOMTAR CORPORATION By: /s/ Noel S. Cohen (with consent) Noel S. Cohen Attorneys for Defendant 17 18 19 20 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: October 31, 2017 23 ___________________________________________ Hon. Edward J. Davila United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 1 Deadlines with respect to dispositive motions to be filed by Polsinelli PC were previously extended to allow time for the parties to negotiate settlement. (ECF Nos. 60 and 70.) As a result of the negotations, Polsinelli PC did not file a dispositive motion and has been dismissed with prejudice. -3STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 DECLARATION OF DEREK J. MEYER I, Derek J. Meyer, declare and state as follows: 1. California, including the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I am one of the attorneys of record for Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 28 Plaintiff has been diligent in preparing its opposition to the Motion but requires additional time for various reason, including but not limited to: a. Plaintiff and former Defendant Polsinelli PC have been engaged in settlement negotiations that successfully resulted in the execution of a settlement agreement and the filing on October 27, 2017, of a stipulation dismissing all claims against Polsinelli PC with prejudice, which was entered by this Court on October 30, 2017 (ECF No. 74); b. I am lead trial counsel for the plaintiff in a matter styled Gregory Ingalls et al v. Spotify USA Inc., 3:16-cv-03533-WHA, pending before the Honorable William Alsup in the San Francisco Division of this Court. On October 27, 2017, the parties were required to serve their pre-trial disclosures in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(C). c. Also in the Ingalls matter, the parties are required to file a joint proposed final pretrial order and other pretrial materials on October 31, 2017, in advance of the pretrial conference set 26 27 Plaintiff has requested that Defendant agree to extend Plaintiff’s deadline for filing the opposition to the Motion by one (1) day to November 1, 2017; 23 25 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion is due on October 31, 2017; 22 24 On October 17, 2017, Defendant filed its Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and or Adjudication (“Motion”, ECF No. 63); 19 21 I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently as to those facts. 18 20 I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts in the State of for November 8, 2017. 7. Defendant has agreed to grant Plaintiff one (1) additional day to file her opposition to -4STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-EJD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the Motion on November 1, 2017; 8. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(c), provided this stipulation is granted, Defendant’s reply in support of the Motion would be due on November 8, 2017; 9. Plaintiff has agreed to provide Defendant with one (1) additional day to file its reply in support of the Motion on November 9, 2017; 10. The dispositive motion deadlines in this case have not been extended with respect to the Domtar Motion; 8 11. There is good cause for extending the deadlines as set forth herein; 9 12. Extending this deadline would not prejudice any party; 10 13. Extending the deadlines as set forth herein would not affect any other dates in the 11 12 13 14 Amended Pretrial Order in the event the Court accepts the proposed new deadlines set forth herein. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 30, 2017 at Los Angeles, California. 15 /s/ Derek J. Meyer 16 Derek J. Meyer 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINES Brezoczky v. Domtar Corp., et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-4995-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?