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.

California Natural Products v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 28, 2013

CALIFORNIA NATURAL PRODUCTS (d/b/a POWER AUTOMATION SYSTEMS), a California corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. (d/b/a HARTNESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.), a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

Jeffrey W. Shopoff (Bar No. 46278), Gregory S. Cavallo (Bar No. 173270), Paul F. Kirsch (Bar No. 127446), James M. Robinson (Bar No. 238063), SHOPOFF CAVALLO & KIRSCH LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, California Natural Products.

GRIPPO & ELDEN LLC, Lynn H. Murray, Attorneys for Defendant, ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC.

POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP David S. Poole, Attorneys for Defendant, ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC.

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff California Natural Products and Defendant Illinois Tool Works hereby stipulate and jointly request that the Court continue the current pre-trial and trial schedule to allow an additional 30-60 days. Good cause for such a continuance is based on (1) unanticipated difficulties and delays in document production caused by technical issues with plaintiff's email and electronic documents archives; and (2) unanticipated difficulties and delays with document discovery in Spain by defendants. Because of these difficulties and delays, to date very few technical documents related to plaintiff's trade secret misappropriation claims have been exchanged between the parties in discovery. Although much of that document production is likely to occur in the coming two to three weeks, the parties' technical experts have not yet had any opportunity to review key documents, and will not be able to do so and prepare expert reports by the current deadline of October 11, 2013. In addition, the delay in document exchange has also caused a delay in the scheduling of critical depositions, which may also be important in the formulation of expert opinions.

To allow discovery to advance further prior to the completion of expert reports, the parties have cooperated in drafting a revised schedule for the Court's consideration. This schedule adds approximately 30-60 days to the calendar, with the case being ready for trial three weeks later than the present trial date. The revised schedule remains within the Court's typical schedule.

Event Current Proposed Expert disclosure, including report Fri., Oct. 11, 2013 Wed., Dec. 11, 2013 Mid-litigation statement to the court Fri., Nov. 1, 2013 Mon., Dec. 16, 2013 (status of all motions already filed and likelihood of future motions) Rebuttal expert disclosure, including Fri., Nov. 8, 2013 Fri., Jan. 17, 2014 report Close of all fact and expert discovery Fri., Dec. 6, 2013 Fri., Feb. 7, 2014 Dispositive motions Fri., Dec. 20, 2013 Fri., Feb. 21, 2014 Dispositive motion responses Wed., Jan. 15, 2014 Fri., Mar. 7, 2014 Dispositive motion replies Wed., Jan. 29, 2014 Fri., Mar. 21, 2014 Hearing on dispositive motions Wed., Feb. 5, 2014 Wed., Apr. 9, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Joint pretrial statement (required) Friday, May 16, 2014 Final pretrial conference Fri., Mar. 21, 2014 at Fri., May 23, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. Trial Mon., April 28, 2014, at Mon., July 14, 2014 9:00 a.m. at 9:00 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.