Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al, No. 4:2009cv00037 - Document 230 (N.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 228 Stipulation Extending Discovery Deadlines. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/4/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2011)

Download PDF

Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Doc. 230 GORDON P. ERSPAMER (CA SBN 83364) GErspamer@mofo.com TIMOTHY W. BLAKELY (CA SBN 242178) TBlakely@mofo.com STACEY M. SPRENKEL (CA SBN 241689) SSprenkel@mofo.com DIANA LUO (CA SBN 233712) DLuo@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Vietnam Veterans of America; Swords to Plowshares: Veterans Rights Organization; Bruce Price; Franklin D. Rochelle; Larry Meirow; Eric P. Muth; David C. Dufrane; Tim Michael Josephs; and William Blazinski 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION 14 VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. CV 09-0037-CW 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES 17 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Complaint filed January 7, 2009 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES Case No. CV 09-0037-CW sf- 2986505 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, the parties hereby respectfully stipulate, 2 subject to the Court’s consideration and approval, that certain discovery deadlines in this 3 litigation be modified as follows: 4 5 6 7 8 9 A. the deadline for completion of fact discovery shall be extended from May 31, 2011, to July 15, 2011; B. the deadline for disclosure of the identities and reports of expert witnesses shall be extended from May 31, 2011, to July 15, 2011; and C. the deadline for completion of expert discovery shall be extended from August 31, 2011, to October 3, 2011. 10 These stipulated modifications to the discovery schedule are not proposed for the purpose of 11 delay, do not impact the current schedule for filing dispositive motions or the current trial date, 12 and reflect the parties’ good faith attempt to accommodate the discovery needs of this litigation. 13 The reasons for this stipulation are set forth below and are supported by the accompanying 14 Declaration of Gordon P. Erspamer (“Erspamer Decl.”). 15 1. On December 23, 2009, the Court entered a Case Management Order 16 setting a May 31, 2011 deadline for both (1) the completion of fact discovery and (2) the 17 disclosure of identities and reports of expert witnesses. (Docket No. 54.) The Court set 18 August 31, 2011, as the deadline for completion of expert discovery. (Id.) 19 2. For the reasons explained below, it has become apparent that the parties 20 will be unable to complete all necessary fact discovery before the current May 31, 2011 deadline 21 and all necessary expert discovery before the current August 31, 2011 deadline. 22 23 24 3. Defendants still are in the process of producing documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ document requests. (Erspamer Decl. ¶ 3.) 4. In order to prepare Defendant Department of Defense’s (“DOD”) 25 Rule 30(b)(6) designated witness for deposition on certain relevant documents, Defendants have 26 requested that the deposition occur after DOD has completed its document production. (Id. ¶ 4.) 27 To accommodate Defendants’ request, Plaintiffs intend to depose the DOD’s designee after the 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES Case No. CV 09-0037-CW sf- 2986505 1 1 DOD has completed its document production, assuming that production is completed in May as 2 DOD currently anticipates. (Id.) 3 5. 4 5 The parties are in the process of scheduling additional depositions in this matter, and expect that several of these depositions will proceed in June. (Id. ¶ 5.) 6. Defendants, Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) and its Secretary 6 Eric K. Shinseki (collectively, the “New Defendants”), were added on November 18, 2010. (See 7 Docket No. 180.) The current deadline for the New Defendants to answer Plaintiffs’ Third 8 Amended Complaint (“TAC”) is 14 days after the Court resolves Defendants’ Partial Motion to 9 Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. (See Docket No. 226.) 10 11 12 7. Once Plaintiffs receive the New Defendants’ answer, additional discovery requests may be required. (Id. ¶ 7.) 8. Defendant DVA provided responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ 13 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on April 11, 2011, and to Plaintiffs’ requests for production and 14 interrogatories on April 25, 2011. (Id. ¶ 8.) DVA raised many objections, which the parties hope 15 to resolve through a meet-and-confer process. (Id.) 16 9. Defendant DVA currently estimates completing its document production 17 by August 31, 2011. (Id. ¶ 9.) The parties continue to meet and confer regarding the scope of 18 Plaintiffs’ document requests to the DVA and the timeline for the DVA’s production of 19 responsive documents. (Id.) 20 10. Defendants have designated many of their produced documents as “subject 21 to the protective order.” (Id. ¶ 10.) The current protective order includes encryption 22 requirements, which have presented technical difficulties as Plaintiffs attempt to review these 23 documents. (Id.; see Docket No. 183 at 10.) The parties are working to appropriately address the 24 encryption issue. (Erspamer Decl. ¶ 10.) 25 11. Plaintiffs’ experts need to consider documents yet to be produced by 26 Defendants, and the testimony of Defendant witnesses, in order to evaluate the evidence in 27 formulating their opinions and drafting their reports for this litigation. (Id. ¶ 11.) Accordingly, 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES Case No. CV 09-0037-CW sf- 2986505 2 1 the disclosure of identities and reports of expert witnesses should, as contemplated by the current 2 schedule, occur at the conclusion of fact discovery. 3 12. The current discovery schedule provides for three months of expert 4 discovery. (See Docket No. 54.) With a later deadline for completion of fact discovery and the 5 disclosure of experts and expert reports, the deadline for completion of expert discovery should 6 also be extended to accommodate expert discovery needs, including expert depositions. 7 (Erspamer Decl. ¶ 12.) 8 13. In light of the foregoing, and in order to permit the parties to complete 9 necessary discovery, the parties agree that the current deadline of May 31, 2011, for completing 10 fact discovery and disclosing the identities and reports of expert witnesses should be extended to 11 July 15, 2011, and that the current August 31, 2011 deadline for completion of expert discovery 12 should be extended to October 3, 2011. (Id. ¶ 13.) 13 14. This agreed-upon extension of the discovery schedule is not submitted for 14 the purpose of delay, and the remaining schedule for the case, including the deadline for 15 dispositive motions and trial, will not be affected by this stipulated extension. (Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: May 3, 2011 GORDON P. ERSPAMER TIMOTHY W. BLAKELY STACEY M. SPRENKEL DIANA LUO MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 20 21 22 23 By: /s/ Gordon P. Erspamer Gordon P. Erspamer [gerspamer@mofo.com] Attorneys for Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES Case No. CV 09-0037-CW sf- 2986505 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dated: May 3, 2011 IAN GERSHENGORN Deputy Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director JOSHUA E. GARDNER KIMBERLY L. HERB LILY SARA FAREL BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN Trial Attorneys UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH 9 10 11 By: /s/ Joshua E. Gardner Joshua E. Gardner [joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov] 12 Attorneys for Defendants 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES Case No. CV 09-0037-CW sf- 2986505 4 1 2 3 ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 5/4/2011 Dated:______________________ 4 5 6 The Honorable Claudia Wilken District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES Case No. CV 09-0037-CW sf- 2986505 5 1 2 GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION I, Gordon P. Erspamer, am the ECF User filing this Stipulation Regarding Extending the 3 Discovery Deadline. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Joshua E. 4 Gardner has concurred in this filing. 5 Dated: May 3, 2011 6 7 /s/ Gordon P. Erspamer Gordon P. Erspamer [GErspamer@mofo.com] 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DISCOVERY DEADLINES Case No. CV 09-0037-CW sf- 2986505 6

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.