Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. EX REL. BRENT v. GATAN, INC., 2:12-CV-0106 MCE CKD. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141003695 Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND OTHER DATES, AND STAYING DISCOVERY MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. Relators Brent Bailey and Emily Wade and Defendants Gatan, Inc. ("Gatan") and Roper Industries, Inc. ("Roper") hereby stipulate to the following: WHEREAS, the Court's Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, dated May 28, 2014 (Dckt. No. 46), set trial in this matter for August 31, 2015, and established other dates and deadlines applicable to this case, including
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING DISCOVERY CUTOFF AND OTHER DATES, AND STAYING DISCOVERY

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Relators Brent Bailey and Emily Wade and Defendants Gatan, Inc. ("Gatan") and Roper Industries, Inc. ("Roper") hereby stipulate to the following:

WHEREAS, the Court's Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order, dated May 28, 2014 (Dckt. No. 46), set trial in this matter for August 31, 2015, and established other dates and deadlines applicable to this case, including a deadline of October 31, 2014, for completion of non-expert discovery and a deadline of April 30, 2015, for the hearing of dispositive motions.

WHEREAS, on September 5, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike ("Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings"), which seeks dismissal of all or portions of Relators' Complaint.

WHEREAS, the parties' recognize that if the Court grants Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in whole or in part, this ruling could have a significant effect on the scope of discovery and the appropriate topics of discovery for both parties.

WHEREAS, the parties do not wish to burden the Court with unnecessary discovery motions or issues that may become moot or irrelevant based upon the Court's ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

WHERAS, the parties wish to stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, to avoid incurring additional burden and expense of discovery that may be rendered unnecessary by the Court's ruling.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and respectfully request that the Court order the following:

1. All dates and deadlines established in the Court's May 28, 2014 Amended

Pretrial Scheduling Order shall be continued at least six months.

2. The parties shall stay all discovery until the Court issues an order on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or until a date 60 days before the new non-expert discovery deadline established by this Stipulation and Order, whichever date is earlier. During the stay, the parties will postpone all pending discovery requests, depositions, meet and confer efforts, and discovery conferences, and will not engage in any new discovery.

ORDER

Pursuant to the above stipulation, the Court's May 28, 2014, Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 46) is VACATED. A Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order will be forthcoming.1

The parties SHALL stay all discovery until the Court issues an order on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 56), or until a date 60 days before the new non-expert discovery deadline established by this Stipulation and Order, whichever date is earlier. As set forth above, during the stay, the parties will postpone all pending discovery requests, depositions, meet and confer efforts, and discovery conferences, and will not engage in any new discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The parties are advised to scrupulously review the forthcoming amended scheduling order as the dates may not be the same as those requested by the parties due to other matters on the Court's calendar.
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