Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Coca-Cola Company and Does 1-50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (San Francisco Division)


February 24, 2012

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
PLAINTIFF, AND ALL CONSOLIDATED CASES
v.
COCA-COLA COMPANY AND DOES 1-50, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MARCH 8, 2012 SETTLEMENT THE CONFERENCE AND ORDER THEREON

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through their 14 respective attorneys of record herein, that the Settlement Conference in this matter, currently 15 scheduled to be held on March 8, 2012 at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, 450 Golden 16 Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, be 17 continued through April 6, 2012. 18

Good cause exists for this continuance as the depositions of the plaintiffs, which are still 19 ongoing, are taking significantly more time than anticipated due to a number of unforseen 20 circumstances: the Plaintiffs' requiring the use of an interpreter is making communication 21 difficult and resulting in the question-and-answer process taking longer than expected. 22

Further, the Defendants believe that not enough discovery has been completed thus far, 23 and will not be completed prior to the Settlement Conference, in order to insure them that they 24 have enough information to have a productive Settlement Conference session. Defendants have 25 still not received Plaintiff Belete's medical records and have only recently received medical 26 records for Plaintiff Alemu from a health care provider that was recently revealed during the 27 taking of his deposition. Further, Defendants need to complete taking Plaintiffs' depositions 28 especially with respect to their medical records, as well as Plaintiff Belete's deposition regarding other limited topics. It is critical that Defendants thoroughly review and analyze Plaintiffs' 2 medical records to assess their claims for damages. Moreover, the parties are discussing dates 3 for additional depositions to be taken during the month of March 2012. 4

During defendant True Manufacturing's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure rule 30(b)(6) 5 deposition taken of defendant Coca-Cola on February 15, 2012, the parties discussed at length 6 and all agreed that a meaningful and productive Settlement Conference will require more 7 discovery to be completed by the Defendants and that this discovery and the analysis of the same 8 cannot be completed in sufficient time prior to the March 8, 2012 Settlement Conference date for 9 them to obtain the requisite settlement authority. The parties do not wish to waste the Court's 10 valuable time or the opportunity to engage in a meaningful and productive Settlement 11 Conference. Due to these unforseen circumstances and the good faith belief, based on 12 Defendants' representations that additional discovery needs to be completed, the parties agree 13 that a March 8, 2012 Settlement Conference date would, in all likelihood, result in an 14 unproductive session. 15

The parties have contacted the clerk for Magistrate Judge Spero and have tentatively 16 calendared April 5, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. as the date for the Settlement Conference, which is the 17 earliest available date on Judge Spero's calendar agreeable to all parties. The parties are 18 confident that sufficient discovery can be completed by April 5, 2012 to give the parties the 19 greatest opportunity at a possible resolution. Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the 20 date for completion of the Mandatory Settlement Conference be continued until April 6, 2012. 21

Pursuant to local rules, this document is being electronically filed through the Court's ECF System. In this regard, counsel for defendant hereby attests that (1) the content of this 23 document is acceptable to all persons required to sign the document; (2) plaintiff's counsel has 24 signed this document; and (3) the signed document is available for inspection upon request. 25

IT IS SO ORDERED:

By:

20120224

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.