Filed: May 28, 2013
Latest Update: May 28, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTICE PLAN FOR FOUR WEEKS RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. Defendant Stonebridge Life Insurance Company ("Stonebridge"), Trifecta Marketing Group LLC ("Trifecta" and collectively with Stonebridge, "Defendants") and Plaintiff Jessica Lee (collectively with Defendants, the "parties"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby enter into the following stipulation: WHEREAS on March 7, 2013 the Court is
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTICE PLAN FOR FOUR WEEKS RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. Defendant Stonebridge Life Insurance Company ("Stonebridge"), Trifecta Marketing Group LLC ("Trifecta" and collectively with Stonebridge, "Defendants") and Plaintiff Jessica Lee (collectively with Defendants, the "parties"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby enter into the following stipulation: WHEREAS on March 7, 2013 the Court iss..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTICE PLAN FOR FOUR WEEKS
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
Defendant Stonebridge Life Insurance Company ("Stonebridge"), Trifecta Marketing Group LLC ("Trifecta" and collectively with Stonebridge, "Defendants") and Plaintiff Jessica Lee (collectively with Defendants, the "parties"), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby enter into the following stipulation:
WHEREAS on March 7, 2013 the Court issued a Case Management Scheduling Order ("Scheduling Order") stating that all non-expert discovery must be completed on or before June 21, 2013;
WHEREAS several sets of discovery requests propounded by plaintiff and Stonebridge remain outstanding;
WHEREAS the parties have been engaged in pursuing other discovery, including discovery against third parties;
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2013, the Court issued an Order regarding Plaintiff's proposed plan to provide notice to the class of the pendency of this class action;
WHEREAS the parties have agreed to explore private mediation in an attempt to resolve their dispute on mutually acceptable terms;
WHEREAS the parties desire to preserve the status quo vis-à-vis discovery and implementation of the notice plan and prevent the parties and the Court from unnecessarily expending additional resources pending mediation;
THEREFORE, subject to the approval of the Court, the parties agree and stipulate as follows:
1. All discovery in this action, including third-party discovery, taking of depositions, and litigation of discovery disputes, shall be stayed for 28 days.
2. Implementation of the Notice Plan shall also be stayed for 28 days.
3. Any deadlines for responding to any outstanding discovery shall be extended 28 days.
4. Certain deadlines set forth in the Court's March 7, 2013 Order shall be modified as follows:
Old Deadline New Deadline
Completion of all non-expert discovery. June 21, 2013 July 19, 2013
Initial expert disclosures in accordance with July 11, 2013 August 8, 2013
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).
Designation of supplemental and rebuttal experts August 9, 2013 September 6, 2013
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(2)
Completion of all expert discovery pursuant to August 30, 2013 September 27, 2013
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4).
Further Case Management Conference September 19, 2013 October 17, 2013
5. All other deadlines set forth in the Court's March 7, 2013 Order, including the trial date, will remain unchanged.
6. All rights and objections with regard to any discovery, including any objections based on the Scheduling Order or the June 21, 2013 discovery cut-off, are reserved and shall not be waived by virtue of this stipulation. No party shall be deemed to have waived their right to submit any outstanding discovery disputes to the Magistrate Judge by virtue of this stipulated order.
7. No party will unilaterally seek, over the objection of another party, to further extend any discovery deadlines. This provision does not impact the parties' rights to request the Magistrate Judge to compel additional discovery after the discovery cut-off in connection with a timely-filed motion regarding discovery served prior to the discovery cut-off.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED
