Opinion
No. 2:11-CV-01814-WBS-DAD
04-19-2012
JAMES R. PAGLIERO, SBN 095898 GABRIEL G. BALDWIN, SBN 234241 PAGLIERO & ASSOCIATES A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant Miratech Corporation
JAMES R. PAGLIERO, SBN 095898
GABRIEL G. BALDWIN, SBN 234241
PAGLIERO & ASSOCIATES
A Professional Corporation
Attorneys for Defendant
Miratech Corporation
STIPULATION AND JOINT REQUEST
FOR ORDER AMENDING PRE-TRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER
Plaintiff AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, by and through its counsel of record, Defendant CASHMAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY, by and through its counsel of record, and MIRATECH CORPORATION, by and through its counsel of record, hereby stipulate and respectfully request the Court to enter a stipulated order amending the pre-trial scheduling order, as follows.
1. At that time the pre-trial scheduling order was entered, discovery was in its very early stages.
2. Since that time, the parties have produced voluminous records and begun initial written discovery. However, the parties are still in the process of exchanging and responding to written discovery. Given the natures of the claims, the parties conclude that depositions and further discovery will be required to clarify the parties' positions on key claims and defenses to continue to move this case towards resolution by settlement or trial.
3. Parties and material witnesses are located in multiple states including California, Oklahoma and Nevada, and possibly others, including Switzerland. It will therefore require additional time to coordinate and complete material and key witness discovery. Additionally, depositions of numerous parties and witnesses are expected and the parties are still coordinating with regard to both dates and locations. The nature, scope and complexity of the issues in this case, combined with the widespread locations of percipient parties and witnesses, the thousands of pages of relevant documents and files, and the significant number of parties and witnesses to be deposed underscore the need for a revision of the pre-trial scheduling order deadlines.
4. The parties jointly submit this stipulation and request to revise the existing pre-trial scheduling order for the dual purposes of: (a) allowing the parties to time to continue and complete investigation and discovery, with an emphasis on the key depositions which could facilitate resolution of the case; and (b) permitting the parties to develop a balanced plan for investigation, discovery and depositions (including expert discovery) such that all parties will be prepared for trial, in the event that the case does not resolve, and the parties best efforts notwithstanding.
5. Based on the foregoing, all parties strongly urge the Court to extend the current deadliness set out in the pre-trial scheduling order. The parties jointly and unanimously move that the following proposed amended pre-trial scheduling order submitted by all parties be entered by the Court.
6. This motion is not made for the purpose of delay, but so that justice may be done. All parties unanimously agree that a reasonable extension is necessary based upon the foregoing.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ITEM ¦CURRENT DATE ¦REVISED DATE ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and ¦05/15/12 ¦11/30/12 ¦ ¦Reports ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Discovery Completion Deadline ¦10/31/12 ¦02/15/13 ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Non-Discovery Motion filing Deadline (No¦03/18/13 ¦03/18/13 ¦ ¦change) ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Final Pretrial Conference ¦05/28/13 at 2:00 ¦05/28/13 at 2:00 ¦ ¦ ¦p.m. ¦p.m. ¦ ¦(No change) ¦ ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------¦ ¦Trial of Matter (No change) ¦07/30/13 at 9:00 ¦07/30/13 at 9:00 ¦ ¦ ¦a.m. ¦a.m. ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
PAGLIERO & ASSOCIATES
A Professional Corporation
_________________________
JAMES R. PAGLIERO
Attorneys for defendant
Miratech Corporation
COZEN O'CONNOR
_________________________
GERARD P. HARNEY
Attorneys for plaintiff
American Home Assurance Company
BORTON PETRINI, LLP
_________________________
MANISH PARIKH
Attorneys for defendant
Cashman Equipment Company
IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED.
_________________________
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE