In re: GERON CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 3:2014cv01224 - Document 104 (N.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting: 103 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Modify Case Management Schedule filed by Olivia K. Bloom, et al. Amended Pleading or add parties by 3/10/2017. Motion for class certification due by 8/12/2016. Responses d ue by 9/26/2016. Replies due by 11/7/2016. Motion on Class Certification Hearing set for 12/16/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/29/2016. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2016)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
In re: GERON CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION Doc. 104 1 COOLEY LLP JOHN C. DWYER (136533) (dwyerjc@cooley.com) 2 BRETT DE JARNETTE (292919) (bdejarnette@cooley.com) 3175 Hanover Street 3 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 4 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 5 COOLEY LLP RYAN E. BLAIR (246724) (rblair@cooley.com) 6 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 7 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 Facsimile: (858) 550-6420 8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 Geron Corporation, John A. Scarlett, Olivia K. Bloom, and Stephen M. Kelsey 10 [Additional counsel listed on signature page] 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 CA No. 3:14-CV-01224 (CRB) In re: GERON CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE This Document Relates To: Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor 16 17 18 ALL ACTIONS CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CV 14 01224 CRB Dockets.Justia.com 1 Lead Plaintiff Vinod Patel (“Lead Plaintiff”) and Defendants Geron Corporation, John A. 2 Scarlett, Olivia K. Bloom, and Stephen M. Kelsey (collectively “Defendants” and together with 3 Lead Plaintiff, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 4 WHEREAS, on November 6, 2015, the Parties filed their Joint Case Management Statement 5 and Order (the “Initial CMS”) (ECF No. 94) proposing a litigation schedule and discovery plan for 6 this action; 7 WHEREAS, on November 13, 2015, the Court expressly adopted certain dates set forth in 8 the Initial CMS, and, although not reflected in the Minute Entry (ECF No. 95), presumably 9 approved the remaining dates set forth in the Initial CMS; 10 WHEREAS, on June 9, 2016, the Court entered an order modifying certain dates set forth in 11 the Initial CMS (ECF No. 101) (the “Modified Scheduling Order”); 12 WHEREAS, the Parties engaged in informal, targeted discovery and attempted to resolve 13 the dispute amicably, but have been unable to do so to date; 14 WHEREAS, on July 8, 2016, Lead Plaintiff served discovery on Defendants, including 15 requests for the production of documents; 16 WHEREAS, Defendants intend to serve discovery on Lead Plaintiff, including requests for 17 the production of documents; 18 WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred and agreed to a new case management 19 schedule that would extend the time for the Parties to substantially complete their respective 20 document productions by approximately one month; and 21 WHEREAS, this one month extension for the Parties to substantially complete their 22 respective document productions would not alter any other dates set forth in the Modified 23 Scheduling Order; 24 WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that, 25 1. The following amended case management schedule should be adopted and the dates 26 highlighted in the chart below should replace the dates set forth in the Modified Scheduling Order: 27 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CV 14 01224 CRB 1 EVENT DATE 2 Exchange of initial disclosures December 11, 2015 3 Plaintiff to file class certification motion August 12, 2016 4 Deadline for substantial completion of document productions October 31, 2016 Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's class certification motion September 26, 2016 8 Plaintiff’s reply in support of class certification motion November 7, 2016 9 Hearing on Plaintiff’s class certification motion 5 6 7 10 Fact discovery cut-off December 2, 2016, or on a date set by the Court February 24, 2017 11 Last day to amend pleadings or add parties March 10, 2017 12 Deadline for Plaintiff to submit expert reports April 7, 2017 13 Deadline for Defendants to submit expert reports May 8, 2017 14 Deadline for Plaintiff to submit rebuttal expert reports, if any June 7, 2017 Expert discovery cut-off June 23, 2017 Defendants to file motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication July 14, 2017 Plaintiff’s to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication August 28, 2017 Defendants reply in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication October 12, 2017 Last day to conduct settlement conference No later than 25 days after Court’s ruling on all dispositive motions Deadline to serve and file Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures No later than 30 days after Court’s ruling on all dispositive motions Deadline to serve motions in limine No later than 30 days after Court’s ruling on all dispositive motions Deadline to serve oppositions to motions in limine No later than 60 days after Court’s ruling on all dispositive motions 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CV 14 01224 CRB 2 3 4 5 Deadline for the Parties to exchange copies of all exhibits, summaries, charts, and diagrams to be used at trial other than solely for impeachment No later than 60 days after Court’s ruling on all dispositive motions Deadline to file joint proposed final pretrial order and other materials as set forth in the Court’s “Guidelines for Trial and Final Pretrial Conference in Civil Jury Cases” No later than 73 days after Court’s ruling on all dispositive motions Pre-trial conference 1 No later than 80 days after Court’s ruling on all dispositive motions Trial to commence No later than 90 days after Court’s ruling on all dispositive motions 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: July 28, 2016 11 COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Ryan E. Blair John C. Dwyer (136533) Brett De Jarnette (292919) 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 Email: jdwyer@cooley.com 12 13 14 15 Ryan E. Blair (246724) 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-1909 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 Facsimile: (858) 550-6420 Email: rblair@cooley.com 16 17 18 19 Attorneys for Defendants Geron Corporation, John A. Scarlett, Olivia K. Bloom, and Stephen M. Kelsey 20 21 22 Dated: July 28, 2016 FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 23 By: /s/Richard W. Gonnello______________ Richard W. Gonnello 24 25 26 27 28 Richard W. Gonnello (admitted pro hac vice) Megan M. Sullivan (admitted pro hac vice) Katherine M. Lenahan (admitted pro hac vice) 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 Email: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com msullivan@faruqilaw.com 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CV 14 01224 CRB klenahan@faruqilaw.com 1 4 Barbara Rohr SBN 273353 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: 424-256-2884 Facsimile: 424-256-2885 Email: brohr@faruqilaw.com 5 Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CV 14 01224 CRB 1 ATTESTATION (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)) 2 In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this 3 document has been obtained from the signatory. 4 5 Dated: July 28, 2016 FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 6 /s/ Ryan E. Blair Ryan E. Blair (246724) 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 9 * 10 11 * * ORDER Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 DATED: July 29, 2016 Honorable Charles R. Breyer United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE CV 14 01224 CRB
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
