The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Claudia Wilken United States District Judge
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING CASE MANAGEMENT DATES
OFFICE DEPOT TEMPORARY DISABILITY PLAN; OFFICE DEPOT LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN;
Temporary Disability Plan, and Office Depot Long Term Disability Plan (collectively the 4 "Defendants") by and through their respective attorneys of record, as follows: 6
granted Defendants extensions to respond to this discovery and the parties sought an extension of 8 the discovery cut-off from December 16, 2011 until January 6, 2012. (Docket No. 27) The Court 9 granted that stipulation. (Docket No. 29) 11 inappropriate objections and insufficient responses, on November 21, 2011, the parties 12 conducted the LR 37-1 meet and confer. During this meet and confer, Defendants' counsel
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff John Campolo ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Aetna"), Office Depot 3 "Office Depot Plan") ("Aetna and the Office Depot Plan are collectively referred to herein as Plaintiff served discovery on the Defendants in March and September, 2011. Plaintiff Following receipt of discovery responses that Plaintiff considered to contain represented that supplemental responses curing many of Plaintiff's concerns would be provided 14 by the end of the month. Defendants did not provide supplemental responses by the end of the 15 month.
regarding the confidentiality of information. (Docket No. 31) and all further discovery motions, was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
(Docket No. 33 & 34) On December 8, 2011, Defendants produced additional information in 21 response to the discovery. The parties again engaged in discussions regarding Plaintiff's 22 concerns with Defendants' supplemental responses. Defendants agreed to provide supplemental 23 responses, but following Plaintiff's request, could not provide a date upon which those 24 supplemental responses would be produced to Plaintiff. 25
26 parties. (Docket No. 34) Based on the parties representation that some of the sought-after 27 discovery had been produced, and that Defendants were working to provide further supplemental 28 responses (which Defendants represented had been delayed due to the holidays and a shortage of On November 23, 2011, the Court granted the parties stipulated protective order On December 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. (Docket No. 32) That Motion, On December 14, 2011, Judge Corley held a telephonic discovery conference with the staff), Judge Corley dismissed Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, without prejudice, and ordered the 2 parties to bring any unresolved discovery matters before the Court through a joint discovery 3 letter. (Docket No. 35) 4 5 discovery within the currently set discovery cut-off was discussed with Judge Corley. The parties 6 each represented their willingness to seek an extension of dates in order to work towards 7 resolving any discovery issues prior to any cut-offs.
During the telephonic discovery conference the issue of sufficient time to fully complete The parties have continued to work toward resolving Plaintiff's concerns regarding Defendants' discovery responses. To date, Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with further 10 supplemental responses. Plaintiff has inquired when Defendants will be able to provide their 11 supplemental responses. Defendants have indicated that they are unable to provide Plaintiff with 12 an exact date for when supplemental responses will be provided. Defendants have indicated they are diligently working to secure documents as soon as possible. Thus, the parties jointly seek an 14 extension of the case management dates in order to fully resolve the discovery issues in advance 15 of the currently set trial briefing schedule.
Discovery cut-off January 6, 2012
Defendants' opposition/cross motion March 12, 2012
Defendants' reply brief April 24, 2012
Hearing on dispositive motions and further CMC May 10, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. 24 Discovery ...