Quality Investment Properties Santa Clara, LLC v. Serrano Electric, Inc. et al, No. 5:2009cv05376 - Document 69 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 30-day Continuance of Deadlines re 62 . Signed by Judge Koh on 3/17/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Quality Investment Properties Santa Clara, LLC v. Serrano Electric, Inc. et al 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Doc. 69 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP JAMES P. DIWIK (Bar No. 164016) JOEL M. LONG (Bar No. 226061) One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 781-7900 Facsimile: (415) 781-2635 Attorneys for Plaintiff Quality Investment Properties Santa Clara, LLC LECLAIRRYAN LLP CHARLES H. HORN (Bar No. 063362) JILL K. RIZZO (Bar No. 236471) 44 Montgomery Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 391-7111 Facsimile: (415) 391-8766 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Claimant Serrano Electric, Inc. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP CHRISTOPHER J. NEVIS (Bar No. 162812) KATHERINE A. HIGGINS (Bar No. 220198) One Sansome Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-2580 Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Claimant Peterson Power Systems, Inc. 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 QUALITY INVESTMENT PROPERTIES SANTA CLARA, LLC, 21 CASE NO. 5:09-cv-05376-LHK STIPULATION FOR 60-DAY EXTENSION OF DISCOVERY, MOTION, PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, AND TRIAL DATES; [PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON Plaintiff, 22 v. 23 SERRANO ELECTRIC, INC., et al., as modified by the Court 24 Defendants. 25 26 And Related Cross-Actions. 27 28 /// SF/2125131v2 -1STIPULATION; ORDER THEREON Dockets.Justia.com 1 The three parties to this action, plaintiff Quality Investment Properties Santa Clara, LLC, 2 defendant and cross-claimant Serrano Electric, Inc., and defendant and cross-claimant Peterson 3 Power Systems, Inc., pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil 4 L.R. 6-2 and 7-12, stipulate to extend by 60 days the following currently scheduled case dates set 5 forth in the Court’s December 8, 2010 Minute Order and Case Management Order: 6 • April 18, 2011 fact discovery cutoff 7 • April 25, 2011 deadline to file motions to compel 8 • May 2, 2011 deadline to designate experts 9 • May 5, 2011 deadline to file and serve dispositive motions 10 • June 2, 2011 expert discovery cutoff 11 • July 20, 2011 pretrial conference 12 • August 1, 2011 trial 13 Good cause exists for the requested modification of the case schedule for the reasons 14 discussed below. 15 1. There have been no prior time modifications in the case, whether by request of the 16 parties or Court order, other than a short extension of time to complete the initial mediation 17 discussed below. 18 2. The parties have been and continue to be actively and diligently prosecuting the 19 case and do not wish to postpone the trial of this matter any more than reasonably necessary. In 20 this regard, this case was filed in November 2009. Each of the defendants timely answered the 21 complaint and filed cross-claims against one another. Shortly thereafter, the parties met and 22 conferred as required by the Court’s November 13, 2009 Order Setting Initial Case Management 23 Conference and ADR Deadlines and agreed to participate in a private mediation to attempt to 24 resolve the case before engaging in active litigation. In preparation for the initial mediation, 25 Quality wished to produce certain damages-related documents to the defendants that Quality 26 believed to be confidential. As such, Quality requested that the parties agree to a stipulated 27 protective order in the form provided on the Court’s website. Serrano’s counsel agreed, but after 28 a lengthy meet and confer process, Peterson’s prior counsel refused. At that point, Quality filed a SF/2125131v2 -2STIPULATION; ORDER THEREON 1 motion for protective order, which was ultimately granted. In the interim, Peterson substituted 2 new counsel into the case, with new counsel needing a reasonable period of time to familiarize 3 themselves with the matter. 4 3. Quality was eventually able to produce its five binders of confidential damages- 5 related documents in early October 2010, and the parties participated in an initial mediation for 6 November 17, 2010. That mediation was unsuccessful. However, the parties ultimately agreed 7 to mediate again, subject to certain insurance carriers becoming involved in the case, the parties 8 exchanging documents, and the defendants having the opportunity to conduct certain depositions. 9 4. The case history above was discussed with the Court at the case management 10 conference held on December 8, 2010. Following that conference, the Court issued a Minute 11 Order and Case Management Order setting various deadlines and dates for the remainder of the 12 case, including an August 1, 2011 trial date. 13 5. Subsequent to the December 8, 2010 case management conference, the parties 14 have engaged in various written and deposition discovery in preparation for a second mediation 15 on March 3, 2011. This includes, without limitation, the following: (a) Quality propounded 16 requests for production of documents to both Serrano and Peterson; (b) Serrano propounded 17 requests for production of documents and interrogatories to Quality; (c) the defendants deposed 18 the following Quality witnesses (i) Lee Higgins, vice president of facilities, on January 12, 2011, 19 in San Francisco, (ii) Paul Oberle, director of construction services, on January 14, 2011, in San 20 Francisco, and (iii) Paul Corning, former general manager west, on January 14, 2011, in San 21 Francisco; (d) the defendants deposed the following non-party witnesses (i) Brian Banner of 22 Inglett & Stubbs (a consultant in connection with the data center at issue in this case), on January 23 20, 2011, in Suwanee, Georgia, (ii) Stephen Edge of Inglett & Stubbs, on January 20, 2011, in 24 Suwanee, Georgia, and (iii) Kenny Giese of Nabholtz Construction Services (a contractor at the 25 facility), on February 18, 2011, in Rogers, Arkansas; and (e) Serrano issued business record 26 subpoenas to various non-parties. The defendants also attempted to depose a former Quality 27 employee, Baron Duffy, a facility manager at the data center at issue in this case, on January 21, 28 2011, in Suwanee, Georgia. The defendants were unable to subpoena Mr. Duffy, however, and SF/2125131v2 -3STIPULATION; ORDER THEREON 1 although Quality attempted to assist in coordinating Mr. Duffy’s deposition, Mr. Duffy did not 2 appear. Depositions of two other Quality witnesses, Mark Charlton and Roland Ignacio, were 3 also scheduled for the week of February 21, 2011, in San Francisco, but were postponed due to a 4 discovery dispute between Quality and Serrano. After meeting and conferring, Quality and 5 Serrano are re-scheduling the depositions of these witnesses as described in Paragraph 7 below, 6 while reserving the issue of Quality’s demand for reimbursement of witness travel expenses 7 related to the postponed depositions for further discussion between the parties and, hopefully, 8 resolution without Court intervention. 9 6. The March 3, 2011 mediation again was unsuccessful. In that event, the parties 10 had anticipated a full six weeks (March 4, 2011 through and including the current April 18, 2011 11 fact discovery cutoff) to complete fact discovery. However, due to various scheduling conflicts 12 involving both witness and counsel unavailability, as well as certain discovery disputes that the 13 parties are actively attempting to work through, this is no longer feasible. 14 15 7. At present, the parties have noticed and are attempting to confirm dates, times and locations for the following additional party and non-party depositions: 16 Witness 17 Peterson 30(b)(6) Various (2-3 designees anticipated) 30(b)(6) 20 Andy Bortolussi Individual 21 Serrano 30(b)(6) Peterson technician Various (4 designees anticipated) 18 Title Witness Type Date/Location as Noticed March 22, 2011; San Francisco 19 22 30(b)(6) March 24, 2011; San Francisco March 28, 2011; San Francisco 23 24 25 26 James Gray Mark Charlton 27 Peterson rental Individual operations mgr. Quality director 30(b)(6) of development March 30, 2011; San Francisco March 30, 2011; Overland Park, Kansas 28 SF/2125131v2 -4STIPULATION; ORDER THEREON Availability No; being rescheduled and/or combined with overlapping individual witness depositions. Tentatively yes. Still being determined; likely to be rescheduled and/or combined with overlapping individual witness depositions. Still being determined. No. Due to limited witness availability and the travel involved, the parties are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mark Waddington Quality president Individual Roland Ignacio Quality director of critical systems Peterson engineer Serrano president Former Serrano superintendent 30(b)(6) Serrano foreman Quality customer Quality customer Serrano foreman Individual 13 14 15 George Schalk 16 Dan Serrano 17 Jason Allen 18 Individual Individual Individual March 31, 2011; Overland Park, Kansas April 1, 2011; Overland Park, Kansas April 1, 2011; San Francisco April 4, 2011; San Francisco April 6, 2011; San Francisco 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Steve Carlson Friendster Dolby Laboratories Spencer Yount Non-party 30(b)(6) Non-party 30(b)(6) Individual April 8, 2011; San Francisco April 11, 2011; San Francisco April 11, 2011; San Francisco April 12, 2011; San Francisco 27 28 /// SF/2125131v2 -5STIPULATION; ORDER THEREON attempting to schedule the Mark Charlton, Mark Waddington, and Roland Ignacio depositions for a three-day block at or near Quality’s corporate headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas. The witnesses’ earliest availability is April 18-20, 2011. Witness and counsel preference is a three-day block in either the first or second week of May 2011. No. See above. No. See above. Still being determined. Tentatively yes. Still being determined. Quality just learned that Mr. Allen is no longer employed with Serrano and therefore must be subpoenaed to ensure his appearance. Tentatively yes. Still being determined. Still being determined. Tentatively yes. 1 2 8. In addition to the depositions listed above, the parties may notice a handful of additional non-party depositions, some of which may be out of state. 3 9. Importantly, the limited additional time requested by the parties via this 4 stipulation will not only permit the depositions discussed above and related discovery to be 5 conducted on a more economical and efficient basis, but it will also permit the parties to continue 6 to work through various pending and anticipated discovery disputes, hopefully without involving 7 the Court. Although one motion to compel has already been filed, others may, and likely will, be 8 avoided with additional time to meet and confer. 9 10. It is also important to note that the parties and their counsel are actively engaged 10 and do not wish to delay final resolution of the case. This is demonstrated by the limited 11 duration of the time extension being requested, 60 days, as opposed to a much longer period of 12 time. 13 11. This stipulation is the product of a substantive meet and confer process between 14 the parties’ counsel. Counsel participated in a lengthy conference call on the morning of 15 Wednesday, March 9, 2011, to discuss deposition scheduling and related discovery issues. 16 Counsel then reviewed and discussed these issues with their respective clients and participated in 17 a second conference call on the morning of Thursday, March 10, 2011, during which a proposed 18 deposition schedule was further refined and the parameters of this stipulation were discussed. 19 Counsel agreed to prepare and submit this stipulation to the Court as soon as practicable. An 20 initial draft was prepared and circulated to all counsel for comment on the afternoon of March 21 10, 2011, with the stipulation being finalized and filed the following day, March 11, 2011. 22 12. For good cause shown, the parties stipulate and agree, and respectfully request 23 that the Court approve, an approximately 60-day continuance of the current case schedule to 24 create a modified case schedule as follows: 25 • Fact discovery cutoff – June 17, 2011 26 • Deadline to file motions to compel – June 24, 2011 27 • Deadline to designate experts – July 1, 2011 28 • Deadline to file and serve dispositive motions – July 8, 2011 SF/2125131v2 -6STIPULATION; ORDER THEREON 1 • Expert discovery cutoff – August 1, 2011 2 • Pretrial conference – September 21, 2011 3 • Trial – October 3, 2011 4 13. If the Court is not available for a trial beginning on October 3, 2011, but does 5 have an open trial date or dates within approximately four to six weeks thereafter, the parties 6 respectfully request that the trial be scheduled on one of those open dates, and that the pretrial 7 dates be continued for the same number of days as the new trial date. 8 DATED: March 11, 2011 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 9 By: /s/ Joel M. Long Joel M. Long Attorneys for Plaintiff Quality Investment Properties Santa Clara, LLC 10 11 12 DATED: March 11, 2011 LECLAIRRYAN LLP 13 By: /s/ Jill K. Rizzo Jill K. Rizzo Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Claimant Serrano Electric, Inc. 14 15 16 DATED: March 11, 2011 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 17 By: /s/ Katherine Higgins Katherine A. Higgins Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Claimant Peterson Power Systems, Inc. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [PROPOSED ORDER FOLLOWS ON NEXT PAGE] 25 26 27 28 SF/2125131v2 -7STIPULATION; ORDER THEREON 1 2 3 [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED CASE SCHEDULE: The Court grants a 30-day continuance of deadlines: 4 • May 18, 2011 Fact discovery cutoff – ____________________ 5 • May 25, 2011 Deadline to file motions to compel – ____________________ 6 • June 2, 2011 Deadline to designate experts – ____________________ 7 • 8 • June 9, 2011, to be heard July 21, Deadline to file/serve dispositive motions – ____________________ 2011 at 1:30 p.m. July 1, 2011 Expert discovery cutoff – ____________________ 9 • August 24, 2011 at 2 p.m. Pretrial conference – ____________________ 10 • September 19, 2011 at 9 Trial – ____________________ a.m. 11 Further extensions of the case schedule will not be favored. 12 Dated: March 17, 2011 13 ____________________________________ Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SF/2125131v2 -8STIPULATION; ORDER THEREON
]]>
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.
