In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, C-14-md-02521 WHO. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20150116f02
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2015
Summary: STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER WILLIAM ORRICK, District Judge. At the January 6, 2015, Case Management Conference, the Court requested that the parties confer regarding the case schedule through trial. The parties hereby stipulate to the following schedule, which includes dates previously agreed upon by the parties and accepted by the Court: Event Date Deadline for parties to exchange Rule 26(a) disclosures. January 9, 2015 Parties
Summary: STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER WILLIAM ORRICK, District Judge. At the January 6, 2015, Case Management Conference, the Court requested that the parties confer regarding the case schedule through trial. The parties hereby stipulate to the following schedule, which includes dates previously agreed upon by the parties and accepted by the Court: Event Date Deadline for parties to exchange Rule 26(a) disclosures. January 9, 2015 Parties ..
More
STIPULATED SCHEDULING ORDER
WILLIAM ORRICK, District Judge.
At the January 6, 2015, Case Management Conference, the Court requested that the parties confer regarding the case schedule through trial. The parties hereby stipulate to the following schedule, which includes dates previously agreed upon by the parties and accepted by the Court:
Event Date
Deadline for parties to exchange Rule 26(a) disclosures. January 9, 2015
Parties to complete prioritized document productions without the January 30, 2015
necessity of a formal request
Deadline for Defendants to file Answers or Motions under Rule January 30, 2015
12(b) to Complaints
Parties to submit joint agenda for February 3, 2015, Status January 30, 2015. Repeated
Conference the Friday before the first
Tuesday of every month
hereafter.
Status Conference February 3, 2015 at 3:30
p.m. PST. Repeated the
first Tuesday of every
month at 3:30 p.m. PST
hereafter.
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Oppositions to Rule 12(b) Motions March 2, 2015
Parties to answer discovery requests served 30 days or more prior March 16, 2015
Deadline for Plaintiffs to request enlargement of limits on March 16, 2015
discovery
Deadline for Defendants to file Replies in Support of Motions to March 20, 2015
Dismiss
Deadline to amend pleadings, add parties, claims or defenses July 17, 2015
except upon a showing of good cause
Close of fact discovery. All discovery requests must be served to October 28, 2015
be answerable by this date, except for requests for admissions,
which may be served up to 45 days before Rule 56 and Daubert
motions are filed
Plaintiffs to file motions for class certification and class November 18, 2015
certification expert reports.
Defendants to file oppositions to motions for class certification and January 20, 2016
opposing class certification expert reports.
Plaintiffs file reply briefs in support of motions for class March 9, 2016
certification and rebuttal class certification expert reports.
Hearing on motions for class certification March 23, 2016
Parties to serve merits expert reports (party with the burden of April 18, 2016
proof on the issue serves its expert report on that issue)1
Parties serve opposing merits expert reports June 27, 2016
Parties serve rebuttal merits expert reports August 11, 2016
Close of expert discovery September 9, 2016
Rule 56 and Daubert motions to be filed September 30, 2016
Rule 56 and Daubert oppositions to be filed November 18, 2016
Rule 56 and Daubert replies to be filed December 23, 2016
Hearing on any Rule 56 and Daubert motions January 12, 2017, 9 a.m.
Joint final pretrial conference statement and proposed order to be February 22, 2017
filed
Final pretrial conference March 13, 2017
Trial April 10, 2017
IT IS SO STIPULATED, through counsel of record.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, THE FOREGOING IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The parties may disagree as to who has the burden of proof as to particular issues that will be addressed in the merits expert reports. In the event the parties cannot resolve this issue between themselves, they will seek guidance from the Court at a later date.
Source: Leagle
