Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01787/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01787-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DOCSSV1:430961.1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (C-04-1787) 

LYNNE C. HERMLE (STATE BAR NO. 99779) 

JOSEPH C. LIBURT (STATE BAR NO. 155507) 

JESSICA R. PERRY (STATE BAR NO. 209321) 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

1000 Marsh Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Telephone: 650-614-7400 

Facsimile: 650-614-7401 

Attorneys for Defendants 

APPLE COMPUTER, INC. and 

DAVID BLACK 

WAUKEEN Q. MCCOY, ESQ. 

LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN Q. MCCOY 

703 Market Street, Suite 1407 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Telephone: 415-675-7705 

Facsimile: 415-675-2530 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NANCY ZAYED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NANCY ZAYED, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

APPLE COMPUTERS, a corporation doing 

business in California; DAVID BLACK, an 

individual, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

Case No. C-04-1787 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE A SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT, CHANGE TIME 

REGARDING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT FILING, AND FOR 

ADDITIONAL PAGES FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 

AND OPPOSITION THERETO 

LOCAL RULE 6-2 

***MODIFIED BY THE COURT***

THE PRELIMINARY 

PRETRIAL/TRIAL SET 

CONFERENCE IS CONTINUED TO 

MON. MARCH 20, 2006 AT 11AM

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 30 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DOCSSV1:430961.1 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (C-04-1787 

The parties hereto, and their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 

WHEREAS the plaintiff has stated that she will request leave to file the Second 

Amended Complaint containing 12 claims for relief, attached hereto as Exhibit A;

WHEREAS without waiving any objection they may have to the Second Amended 

Complaint, and subject to the Court’s approval of all provisions of this Stipulation, defendants 

will not object to plaintiff’s request for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint attached 

hereto as Exhibit A; 

WHEREAS the Court previously entered a Scheduling Order in this case on 

February 1, 2005; 

WHEREAS the Scheduling Order sets November 28, 2005 as the final date to hear 

dispositive motions, and according to the local rules, the last date to file a dispositive motion is 

October 24, 2005; 

WHEREAS it would cause defendants unwarranted prejudice to attempt to file a 

summary judgment motion before having sufficient time to analyze and answer plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint; 

 WHEREAS due to the number of issues that will be addressed in the parties’ 

summary judgment briefs (including 12 claims for relief), the parties agree that they should be 

permitted an additional five (5) pages in addition to the length permitted by Local Rules 7-2 and 

7-3 in their respective memoranda of points and authorities which will be filed in relation to 

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 

WHEREAS discovery closed on October 3, 2005; 

WHEREAS no trial date has yet been set by the Court; 

WHEREAS the Parties agree that although discovery in this case has proceeded, 

the parties have not yet conducted expert discovery pursuant to the Court’s July 22, 2005 

modification to its February 1, 2005 Scheduling Order; 

WHEREAS the Parties believe that extending the expert witness deadlines set 

forth in the Court’s July 22, 2005 Order until after the Court rules on the parties’ dispositive 

motions will be conducive to the efficient and expedient conduct of this litigation and will serve 

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 30 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DOCSSV1:430961.1 - 2 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (C-04-1787 

the ends of justice and avoid unnecessary costs; and

WHEREAS the Parties have previously requested one time modification to the 

Scheduling Order deadlines set by the Court to extend the expert witness deadlines, 

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. Plaintiff shall be permitted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint 

attached hereto. The Second Amended Complaint shall be deemed filed on the date this Order is 

entered.

2. The deadlines set forth in the Court’s February 1, 2005, Scheduling Order 

shall be modified as follows: 

(a) the last day for the Court to hear dispositive motions is February 6, 

2006;

(b) the deadline to disclose expert witnesses pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26(a) 

is March 20, 2006; 

(c) the deadline to disclose rebuttal expert witnesses is April 3, 2006; 

(d) the hearing deadline for motions objecting to the qualifications or 

proposed testimony of any expert is May 27, 2006; 

(e) The discovery deadline is extended to May 1, 2006, as to expert 

discovery only, and discovery shall remain closed for all non-expert 

discovery.

3. The parties shall be permitted an additional five (5) pages in addition to the 

length permitted by Local Rules 7-2 and 7-3 in their respective memoranda of points and 

authorities which will be filed in relation to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

(f) The Preliminary pretrial/trial set conference is reset to Mar.20,2006@11am

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 30 Filed 10/19/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DOCSSV1:430961.1 - 3 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (C-04-1787 

4. This Stipulation shall be made an Order of the Court. 

Dated: October 17, 2005 LYNNE C. HERMLE 

JOSEPH C. LIBURT 

JESSICA R. PERRY 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

 /s/

Jessica R. Perry 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Apple Computer, Inc. and David Black 

Dated: October 17, 2005 WAUKEEN Q. MCCOY, ESQ. 

LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN Q. MCCOY 

/s/

Rachael Orejana 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Nancy Zayed 

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________, 2005 

Hon. James Ware 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Oct. 19,

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 30 Filed 10/19/05 Page 4 of 4