Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MAPLES v. SOLARWINDS, INC., 12-06066 SBA. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130401713 Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE AMENDED ORDER OF REFERENCE TO EXTEND THE COMPLETION DATE FOR A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge. STIPULATION Plaintiff Mike Maples, Jr. ("Plaintiff") and defendant SolarWinds, Inc. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to modify the Amended Order of Reference to extend the completion date for a mandatory settlement conference by thirty days, fr
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY THE AMENDED ORDER OF REFERENCE TO EXTEND THE COMPLETION DATE FOR A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff Mike Maples, Jr. ("Plaintiff") and defendant SolarWinds, Inc. ("Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to modify the Amended Order of Reference to extend the completion date for a mandatory settlement conference by thirty days, from June 4, 2013 to July 4, 2013. Good cause exists for the requested extension:

WHEREAS, Defendant believes that the proposed extension is necessary for the Parties to complete the limited, agreed-upon discovery sufficiently in advance of the settlement conference, and, more particularly, the deadline for the Parties' written submissions prior to the settlement conference, for the following reasons;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff does not believe the proposed extension is necessary, but does not oppose the extension;

WHEREAS, on March 8, 2013, the Court issued the Amended Order of Reference (the "Order"), referring the case to Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu for a mandatory settlement conference to take place within ninety days of the Order — i.e., June 4, 2013. The Order also states that the Parties shall meet and confer regarding the scope of the limited discovery to prepare for the settlement conference;

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Order, the Parties met and conferred and agreed to conduct limited discovery in advance of a mandatory settlement conference;

WHEREAS, on March 14, 2013, Defendant served on Plaintiff requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and interrogatories, setting the production date for April 16, 2013. Defendant also noticed Plaintiff's deposition for April 24, 2013, within a week of receipt of Plaintiff's discovery responses and documents;

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2013, Plaintiff served on Defendant requests for production of documents, setting the production date for April 24, 2013. Plaintiff would also like to depose an employee of Defendant prior to the settlement conference;

WHEREAS, during the ninety-day period, Magistrate Judge Ryu is available for a mandatory settlement conference on only May 2, 2013 or May 7, 2013;

WHEREAS, Judge Ryu's Standing Order provides that the parties must submit an Exchanged Settlement Conference Statement and a Confidential Settlement Letter (collectively, "Settlement Statements") no later than ten days prior to the settlement conference;

WHEREAS, if the mandatory settlement conference were to proceed on May 2, 2013, the Parties' Settlement Statements would be due on April 22, 2013, before Plaintiff's deposition and prior to Defendant's production of documents;

WHEREAS, if the mandatory settlement conference were to proceed on May 7, 2013, the Parties' Settlement Statements would be due on April 26, 2013, providing only two days after Plaintiff's deposition and Defendant's production of documents for the Parties to obtain deposition transcripts, confer with their clients and incorporate the additional discovery into the Parties' Settlement Statements;

WHEREAS, Defendant believes that the Parties will be in a better position to assess the case for settlement after the agreed-upon discovery is completed and if the Parties have sufficient time to incorporate such discovery into their Settlement Statements;

WHEREAS, in light of the above, Defendant requests to extend the completion date for a mandatory settlement conference by thirty days, from June 4, 2013 to July 4, 2013.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, through their respective counsel of record, subject to approval by the Court, that the Order shall be modified to extend the completion date for a mandatory settlement conference to July 4, 2013.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court has considered the parties' stipulation and, finding good cause therefore, approves the stipulation and modifies its March 8, 2013 Amended Order of Reference to extend the completion date for a mandatory settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Ryu by thirty days, from June 4, 2013 to July 4, 2013.

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