United Brands Company, Inc. v. Anheuser-Bush, Inc.

Filing 57

MOTION to Continue Unopposed Motion to Continue Scheduled Dates by United Brands Company, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Brian Behmer, # 2 Proof of Service)(Behmer, Brian) (cge).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

NANCY O. DIX (Bar No. 129150)
BRIAN L. BEHMER (Bar No. 156978)
CHRISTINA D. YATES (Bar No. 201748)
CHRISTOPHER J. BEAL (Bar No. 216579)
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-4297
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

8

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED BRANDS COMPANY, INC.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16
17

UNITED BRANDS COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.,
Defendant.

18
19

CASE NO. 10-cv-2281-AJB (KSC)
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE
SCHEDULED DATES
District Judge:
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
Magistrate Judge: Hon. Karen S. Crawford
Complaint: November 4, 2010

United Brands Company, Inc. (“United Brands”) hereby respectfully requests that this

20

Court continue the scheduled dates in this case to allow for mediation following the Early Neutral

21

Evaluation Conference. This is Plaintiff’s first request to continue pretrial dates. Declaration of

22

Brian L. Behmer (“Behmer Decl.”), ¶ 2. Defendant Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (“A-B”) does not

23

oppose this request by United Brands. (Behmer Decl., ¶ 3.)

24

The requested continuance would permit the parties to engage in the scheduled mediation

25

without incurring significant costs and fees associated with discovery in advance of the

26

mediation. The parties last appeared before the Court on February 10, 2012, for a

27

Settlement/Case Management Conference. When the case did not settle on that date, Magistrate

28

Judge McCurine strongly encouraged the parties to continue a settlement dialogue, and the parties
-1-

DLA P IPER LLP (US)
SAN DIEGO

WEST\229736550.2

10-CV-2281-AJB (KSC)

1

recently agreed to both a mediator and a mediation date. The mediation will take place on April

2

25, 2012, which is the first available date for the parties and the mediator, Hon. Leo S. Papas,

3

Ret.. (Behmer Decl., ¶ 4.)

4

The parties’ respective discovery responses are due prior to and immediately after the

5

mediation date, thereby requiring the parties to expend considerable time and resources on

6

responding to discovery and document production, including electronic discovery, in advance of

7

the mediation. United Brands’ discovery responses are currently due on April 7, 2012, and A-B’s

8

are due on April 30, 2012. (Behmer Decl., ¶ 5.) Counsel for the parties both recognize that

9

significant expenditures of resources in discovery will likely make settlement more difficult in

10

this case. (Behmer Decl., ¶ 6.) Counsel for A-B has informed counsel for United Brands that it

11

does not oppose this request. (Behmer Decl., ¶ 2.) Further, given the transfer of this matter from

12

Magistrate Judge McCurine to Magistrate Judge Crawford (Dkt. 56), rescheduling would likely

13

allow Judge Crawford to integrate this case into her other case schedules.

14
15

Based on the foregoing, United Brands moves the Court for an Order continuing the dates
as follows:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Event
Expert Disclosure Deadline

Current Deadline
June 15, 2012

Proposed New Deadline
August 14, 2012

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure
Deadline

June 29, 2012

August 28, 2012

Disclosures pursuant to Rule
26(a)(2)(B)

July 27, 2012

September 25, 2012

Supplemental Disclosures
pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(c)

August 13, 2012

October 12, 2012

Discovery Cutoff (Discovery
Completed by)

September 13, 2012

November 12, 2012

Mandatory Settlement
Conference (briefs submitted
by September 17, 2012)

September 19, 2012

November 19, 2012 (briefs
submitted by November 15,
2012)

28
DLA P IPER LLP (US)
SAN DIEGO

-2WEST\229736550.2

10-CV-2281-AJB (KSC)

1
2

Event
Pretrial Motion Deadline

Current Deadline
October 12, 2012

Proposed New Deadline
December 11, 2012

3

Pretrial Disclosure Deadline

January 25, 2013

March 26, 2013

4

Parties Meet and Confer
regarding Pretrial Order by
Objections to Pretrial
Disclosures

February 1, 2013

April 3, 2013

February 8, 2013

April 9, 2013

Proposed Pretrial Conference
Order Deadline

February 8, 2013

April 9, 2013

Final Pretrial Conference

February 15, 2013

April 16, 2013

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Good cause exists for this continuance because the parties are engaged in settlement
negotiations and have a scheduled mediation on April 25, 2012, and granting the present motion
would allow the Parties to continue to focus on the mediation and settlement while minimizing
litigation expenses. (Behmer Decl., ¶ 7.)
NOW THEREFORE, United Brands requests that all dates in this case are continued for
60 days, pursuant to the table above.
Dated: April 5, 2012

18

DLA PIPER LLP (US)
By: s/Brian L. Behmer
BRIAN L. BEHMER
[e-mail]

19
20

Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED BRANDS COMPANY, INC.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DLA P IPER LLP (US)
SAN DIEGO

-3WEST\229736550.2

10-CV-2281-AJB (KSC)