Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Braun v. Cellco Partnership, 2:13-CV-00872-WBS-EFB. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140522807 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 21, 2014
Latest Update: May 21, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER TO ALLOW FOR MEDIATION WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. Plaintiff Nathan Braun ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Defendant") hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, pursuant to this Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order dated September 20, 2013, ECF No. 14, the discovery deadline in the above-captioned matter is set for June 2, 2014 and trial is set for December 2, 2014; WHEREAS, the pa
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER TO ALLOW FOR MEDIATION

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Plaintiff Nathan Braun ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Defendant") hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, pursuant to this Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order dated September 20, 2013, ECF No. 14, the discovery deadline in the above-captioned matter is set for June 2, 2014 and trial is set for December 2, 2014;

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to mediate this matter and the mediation will take place within 45-60 days to accommodate the mediator's schedule as well as the schedule of the parties;

WHEREAS, in light of the parties' intent to pursue mediation, the parties request a limited modification of the Pretrial Scheduling Order to allow adequate time for the parties to prepare for and engage in mediation and to prepare for trial in the event a settlement is not reached;

WHEREAS, the agreed-upon schedule is not for the purpose of delay, promotes judicial efficiency, and will not cause prejudice to any party;

WHEREAS, the parties have not sought any previous request to continue the dates in the Pretrial Scheduling Order.

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, subject to the approval of the Court, that the Pretrial Scheduling Order is amended as follows:

1. The discovery deadline of June 2, 2014 will remain the same, subject to three modifications: a. If the mediation is unsuccessful, Plaintiff may re-notice the depositions of Cynthia Gomez-Jackson, Angel Ramirez, Joe Cayero, Jillian Sanguilliano, and Kevin Zavaglia within 30 days of the unsuccessful mediation, subject to any objections by Defendant or requests for protective order. b. If the mediation is unsuccessful, Defendant will respond to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, within 15 days of the unsuccessful mediation, subject to any objections. c. Plaintiff may submit a discovery dispute to the Court pursuant to Local Rule 251 solely with respect to the following post-mediation discovery: (i) Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set Three; and (ii) the depositions of Cynthia Gomez-Jackson, Angel Ramirez, Joe Cayero, Jillian Sanguilliano, and Kevin Zavaglia. Plaintiff must file and serve any dispute or discovery motion related to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, Set Three within 15 days of service of Defendant's response. Plaintiff must file and serve any dispute or discovery motion related to the depositions listed in this paragraph within 5 days of the noticed date of the individual's deposition. Plaintiff may not submit a discovery dispute or otherwise file any discovery motion that relates to Defendant's discovery responses which were completed prior to the mediation. Plaintiff may, if necessary, file any motion to compel production of documents relating to subpoenas issued on or about May 16, 2014, to ADP Payroll Services, Inc. and Talx Ucm Services, Inc.

2. The trial date, currently set for December 2, 2014, is continued to February 10, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. The Pretrial Conference is continued to December 8, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.

All other deadlines and dates set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling Order stand. There will be no other waivers or deviations from the Pretrial Scheduling Order. Respectfully submitted,

Respectfully submitted.

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer