Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Xerox Consultant Co., Inc. v. Marin General Hospital Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

February 6, 2014

XEROX CONSULTANT COMPANY, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff,
MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a California non-profit public benefit corporation, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

ARCHER NORRIS, P.C. Douglas C. Straus, Sharon C. Collier, Walnut Creek, CA, Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant, MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL CORPORATION.

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations PHILIP F. ATKINS-PATTENSON, ARTHUR J. FRIEDMAN, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant XEROX CONSULTANT COMPANY, INC.


EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 6-2(a) and 7-12, Defendant and Counter-Claimant Marin General Hospital Corporation ("MGHC") and Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Xerox Consulting Company, Inc. ("Xerox"), by and through their attorneys of record, respectfully submit their Stipulated Request For Order Changing Time To Continue Trial And Pretrial Dates.


In support thereof, the parties state the following:

1. At the Status Conference on June 6, 2013, the Court set the schedule for the case. (Dkt. # 36.) Among other dates, March 6, 2014 is the last date for completion of non-expert discovery and the date for exchange of expert reports.

2. At the Status Conference on December 12, 2013, the Court did not modify the case schedule, directed the parties to "accelerate the discovery process, " referred the case to a Magistrate Judge for discovery, and extended the date for completion of mediation to February 28, 2014. (Dkt. # 43.) Magistrate Judge Cousins was appointed to handle discovery.

3. Since the Status Conference on December 12, 2014:

a. The parties finalized and the Court entered the Stipulated Protective Order on December 18, 2013. (Dkt. # 45.) Entry of the Stipulated Protective Order was necessary for the parties' document productions to begin as they contain data and information covered by HIPAA.

b. On December 27, 2013, Xerox made an initial production to MGHC of almost 50, 000 unique records in electronic form.[1]

c. On January 22, 2014, MGHC has made an initial production to Xerox of more than 290, 000 unique records in electronic form.

d. On January 13, 2014, the parties' submitted their Joint Report on Discovery to Judge Cousins. (Dkt. # 46.)

e. On January 16, 2014, the parties attended the initial Discovery Conference before Judge Cousins. (Dkt. # 47.)

f. On January 23, 2014, counsel for the parties and their respective technical staff and consultants participated in a telephone conference call to discuss the technical issues relating to access to MGHC's electronic data relating to its patient accounts receivable that are the bases for its damages alleged in MGHC's Counterclaim. The parties each recognize that this is a challenging task as there are more than 400, 000 individual A/R files with potentially hundreds of data fields in each file. Xerox needs to understand how the data files are organized in order to be able to analyze these data and evaluate MGHC's damages claim. The parties and their technical teams will be engaging in a series of such conversations over the coming weeks.

g. On January 24, 2014, MGHC served Xerox with its Second Supplemental Interrogatory Responses. Under Judge Cousins' Civil Motion Minutes (Dkt. # 47), the adequacy of these further responses will be addressed at the next Discovery Conference on February 13, 2014.

h. The parties have scheduled a full-day mediation for Thursday, February 20, 2014, with Hon. James Warren (Ret.) at JAMS.[2]

i. Counsel for the parties have met and conferred on an on-going basis (in person, by telephone and e-mail) regarding the status of their respective document productions to one another. At present, the parties anticipate substantial completion of their productions by mid-February 2014. Given the size of these productions, it is expected that there will be some follow up, as well as the exchange of privilege logs.

j. Counsel for the parties have also met and conferred regarding the challenges of completing all non-expert discovery, and exchanging opening expert reports, by the March 6, 2014 deadline. (Dkt. # 36.)

4. Based on the current state of discovery, particularly document discovery, the parties have concluded that they require additional time to allow for the completion of document discovery, evaluation and analysis of same, meaningful deposition discovery of a large number of fact witnesses and preparation of expert reports.

5. The parties each agree that their ability to investigate, prepare their claims and defenses, and prepare for trial will be prejudiced if the current case schedule is not substantially modified.

6. There have been no prior continuances requested or granted.

7. Counsel for the parties have met and conferred regarding a possible modification of the current case schedule, and have taken their respective trial commitments in other matters into account. Counsel for Xerox has a firm date for a Phase II jury trial on October 20, 2014, which is expected to last three to four weeks. Counsel for MGHC has a firm date (the five year statute expires in early November 2014) for a Fresno County Superior Court jury trial beginning October 27, 2014 which is scheduled to last one to two weeks.

8. Taking into account all these factors, the parties agree to a proposed modification of the current case schedule as follows (subject to the Court's availability on the dates listed below):



Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2(a), Douglas M. Straus, counsel for MGHC, and Philip F. Atkins-Pattenson, counsel for Xerox, each declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing statements in the Stipulated Joint Request are known to them of their personal knowledge and are true.


Having considered the foregoing Stipulated Request and Joint Declaration, and good cause appearing in support thereof, the Court grants the parties' request to continue the trial date and modify the other pre-trial dates accordingly. The Court will issue a separate Order regarding same.

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.