Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DURAN v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, 3:14-CV-01184 RS. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150106855 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 02, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CERTAIN DEADLINES RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Joseph Duran, John Bell, Jason Mears, Victor DeSimone, Christina Lee, and Sarah Cataldo ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant The Hershey Company ("Defendant") (collectively, "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the Court, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Court issued a
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CERTAIN DEADLINES

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiffs Joseph Duran, John Bell, Jason Mears, Victor DeSimone, Christina Lee, and Sarah Cataldo ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant The Hershey Company ("Defendant") (collectively, "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the Court, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2014, the Court issued a Case Management Order setting certain deadlines (Dkt. No. 23);

2. WHEREAS, the Parties are currently engaged in discovery, have scheduled certain depositions, and are working toward negotiating an ESI agreement;

3. WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to the extension of certain deadlines as follows:

Event Current Deadline Proposed Deadline Expert Disclosures January 22, 2015 March 17, 2015 Mediation Deadline January 30, 2014 April 30, 2015 Supplemental and Rebuttal February 12, 2015 April 7, 2015 Expert Designations Close of Fact and Expert March 5, 2015 May 5, 2015 Discovery Case Management Conference March 12, 2015 May 14, 2015 Deadline for Dispositive March 19, 2015 May 28, 2015 Motions to Be Heard Motions in Limine May 11, 2015 June 11, 2015 Oppositions to Motions in May 18, 2015 June 18, 2015 Limine Final Pretrial Conference May 21, 2015 June 25, 2015

4. WHEREAS, the Parties have previously requested an extension of the mediation deadline, but have not requested extensions of the other deadlines;

5. WHEREAS, the Parties do not belive that an extension of these deadline will affect the Court's schedule for this case, including the trial date (July 13, 2015).

THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree and stipulate to the proposed deadline included above.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

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