Filed: Aug. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2016
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER MODIFIYING COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER THEREON KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiffs June Riddick, Patricia Hardy, Natalie Maderos, Valerie Lynn and Lisa Vales ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant YP ADVERTISING & PUBLISHING LLC, formerly known as YP WESTERN DIRECTORY LLC, ("YP") (collectively referred to as the "Parties") by and through their undersigned counsel of record, here by stipulate, and by this Stipulation request the Court's approval, to the f
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER MODIFIYING COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER THEREON KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiffs June Riddick, Patricia Hardy, Natalie Maderos, Valerie Lynn and Lisa Vales ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant YP ADVERTISING & PUBLISHING LLC, formerly known as YP WESTERN DIRECTORY LLC, ("YP") (collectively referred to as the "Parties") by and through their undersigned counsel of record, here by stipulate, and by this Stipulation request the Court's approval, to the fo..
More
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER MODIFIYING COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER THEREON
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs June Riddick, Patricia Hardy, Natalie Maderos, Valerie Lynn and Lisa Vales ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant YP ADVERTISING & PUBLISHING LLC, formerly known as YP WESTERN DIRECTORY LLC, ("YP") (collectively referred to as the "Parties") by and through their undersigned counsel of record, here by stipulate, and by this Stipulation request the Court's approval, to the following:
WHEREAS, Defendant does not object to an additional modification of the
Court's scheduling order because it intends to file a motion for summary judgment and seeks to preclude any argument by Plaintiffs that they were denied their fair right to conduct discovery.
1. The Parties have diligently litigated this action. For example:
a. The parties continue to speak directly about the case; about appropriate processes for moving the case forward; about possibilities for future resolution of some or all issues; and about litigation efficiency.
b. Plaintiffs have deposed multiple individuals to date; however, Plaintiffs expect to take the deposition of five to six additional witnesses, some of whom reside outside of the State.
c. However, on two (2) occasions Defendant postponed important depositions, including the Person Most Qualified for the Defendant. That deposition is now scheduled for July 22, 2016, and July 29, 2016.
d. Furthermore, there is substantial documentation which has not been produced by Defendant. The parties have continued the meet and confer process, and Defendant has agreed to supplement a substantial portion of the Request for Production of Documents. These documents are critical in preparing Plaintiffs' case for trial.
e. Defendant has just modified its initial disclosure to include a new witness, who lives out of State. Although, Plaintiffs had requested to depose this individual, Defendant failed to provide the last known address and phone number for this individual, making it impossible for Plaintiffs to depose the witness. Now that Defendant has provided the witnesses contact information in its modified additional disclosure, Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to depose the new witness who lives out of state.
f. Plaintiff had also requested the deposition of multiple other individuals. Defendant has failed to provide last known address and phone number and have stated that they are no longer employed by Defendant.
2. In order to fully and properly prepare this matter for trial and in order to properly oppose Defendant's summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs require additional time to conduct depositions and fully prepare their case. Additionally, while Defendant does not oppose and stipulates to an order modifying the Court's Scheduling Order, it does so because it intends to file a motion for summary judgment and seeks to preclude any argument by Plaintiffs that they were denied their fair right to discover; and in order to secure additional time to file its motion for summary judgment in the event the discovery cut-off date is extended.
3. The current Scheduling Order is set forth below:
Disclosure of Expert Witnesses April 29, 2016
Close of All Discovery July 29, 2016
Settlement Conference August 15, 2016
Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions September 23, 2016
Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Statement September 27, 2016
Final Pretrial Conference October 7, 2016
Jury Trial October 17, 2016
Given the volume of Plaintiffs' allegations and issues and the written discovery and depositions still to be completed, multiple depositions to still be completed, Plaintiffs propose the following final modified Scheduling Order and respectfully request this Court's approval of the same:
Disclosure of Expert Witnesses April 29, 2016
[UNCHANGED]
Settlement Conference October 17, 2016
Close of All Discovery November 28, 2016
Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions January 27, 2017
Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Statement January 31, 2017
Final Pretrial Conference February 10, 2017
Jury Trial February 20, 2017
This is so stipulated.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
Pursuant to stipulation between to the stipulation between Plaintiffs June Riddick, Patricia Hardy, Natalie Maderos, Valerie Lynn and Lisa Vales; and Defendant YP ADVERTISING & PUBLISHING LLC (formerly known as YP WESTERN DIRECTORY LLC), the Court modifies its current Scheduling Order as follows:
Disclosure of Expert Witnesses April 29, 2016
[UNCHANGED]
Settlement Conference December 5, 2016 at 9
a.m. in Magistrate Judge
Kendall J. Newman's
Chambers1
Close of All Discovery November 28, 2016
Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions January 27, 2017
Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Statement May 12, 2017
Final Pretrial Conference June 2, 2017
Trial Briefs are due by June 26, 2017
Jury Trial July 10, 2017
IT IS SO ORDERED.
