The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
Assigned to: Judge Oliver W. Wanger
STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Trial Date: November 3, 2009 Time: 9:00 a.m.
It is hereby stipulated by and between ROSEDALE PLAZA GROUP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as "ROSEDALE"), on the one hand, and BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as "BPWCP"), on the other hand, through their respective attorneys of record:
RECITALS and STIPULATIONS
A. ROSEDALE's Motion for Preliminary Injunction was heard and granted on or about March 30, 2009.
B. On or about April 3, 2009, the Court entered its Scheduling Conference Order setting forth that the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment be filed no later than June 15, 2009, the Oppositions to the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment be filed by June 29, 2009, any Replies to the Oppositions to the Cross- Motions for Summary Judgment be filed no later than July 6, 2009 and that the hearing on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment be heard on August 10, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 of the above-entitled Court.
C. Immediately after the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the parties began the discovery process in a cooperative effort. However, to accommodate the various witnesses' schedules, several depositions were delayed several weeks. These delays resulted in the transcripts not yet being completed, reviewed by the deponents and any changes (if necessary) not yet being transmitted to counsel. Written discovery has also been propounded and while responses are being transmitted within the statutory guidelines, some time will be needed to review and analyze same and (if necessary) follow up.
D. Additionally, one more deposition must be taken in Lodi, California.
Plaintiff's counsel is attempting to schedule the deposition of the non-party witness, however, proper notice must be given and a mutually agreeable date and time set for same. Counsel believes that it will take more than two weeks to take the deposition, receive the transcript, have the deponent read, review, make any changes necessary and sign under penalty of perjury.
E. In order to fully and completely brief the Court on the various matters of law, the parties believe that a two-week extension with regard to the filing and hearing dates regarding the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment is necessary and warranted. Counsel believes that while every endeavor has been undertaken to move this matter along as quickly as possible, good cause exists for the short two-week extension.
F. All Counsel agree and stipulate that, with the Court's permission which is respectfully requested, the revised dates would be as follows:
a. New Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Filing Deadline:
b. New Oppositions to Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Filing ...