Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

KARASEK v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 3:15-cv-03717-WHO. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170224e62 Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE WILLIAM H. ORRICK , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, the parties to the above entitled action, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, the Court set the below pretrial schedule at the Case Management Conference on July 5, 2016 (Dkt. No. 72); WHEREAS, thereafter on July 28, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Sofie Karasek's and Nicoletta Commins's claims in the Third Amend
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULE

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, the parties to the above entitled action, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, the Court set the below pretrial schedule at the Case Management Conference on July 5, 2016 (Dkt. No. 72);

WHEREAS, thereafter on July 28, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Sofie Karasek's and Nicoletta Commins's claims in the Third Amended Complaint with leave to amend (Dkt. No. 77);

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint on September 1, 2016 (Dkt. No. 83), Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs Karasek's and Commins's claims on October 3, 2016 (Dkt. No. 87), and the Court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend on December 22, 2016 (Dkt. No. 96);

WHEREAS, the Parties did not anticipate the additional round of motion to dismiss briefing when they proposed the pretrial schedule that was adopted by the Court (see Dkt. No. 69);

WHEREAS, the discovery cut-off (March 10, 2017) and other pretrial deadlines do not provide adequate time for the Parties to respond to written discovery requests, produce and review documents, serve third party subpoenas, conduct depositions, attempt mediation, and engage in other discovery efforts necessary for the development of their respective cases;

WHEREAS, these pretrial deadlines have not been previously modified;

WHEREAS, a six-month extension of the pretrial deadlines would enable the parties to take the necessary discovery.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between Plaintiffs and Defendant, by and through their undersigned attorneys, that the pretrial dates shall be extended by approximately 6 months as follows:

Event Current Date Stipulated Date Fact discovery cutoff March 10, 2017 September 8, 2017 Expect disclosure April 28, 2017 October 20, 2017 Expert rebuttal May 26, 2017 November 17, 2017 Expert discovery cutoff June 30, 2017 January 4, 2018 Dispositive motions heard by September 6, 2017 March 7, 2018 Pretrial Conference November 13, 2017 at 2:00pm May 14, 2018 at 2:00pm Trial December 11, 2017 at 8:30am June 11, 2018 at 2:00pm

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED with the modification that the trial will commence at 8:30 a.m. on June 4, 2018.

ATTESTATION CLAUSE

I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the above signatories.

Dated: February 21, 2017. By: /s/Jeslyn A. Everitt Jeslyn A. Everitt Attorneys for Defendant
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