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

DOCSSV1:450002.2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

MODIFYING EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE

DEADLINES (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 CHANGE TIME 

REGARDING EXPERT WITNESS 

DISCLOSURE DEADLINES 

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 67 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 3
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

DOCSSV1:450002.2 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

MODIFYING EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE

DEADLINES (C-04-1787) 

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

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

February 1, 2005 and modified that Scheduling Order on July 22, 2005 and on October 18, 2005; 

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 October 18, 2005 

modification to its February 1, 2005 Scheduling Order; 

WHEREAS Defendants filed summary judgment on November 14, 2005 and the 

Court informed the parties it was taking the matter under submission without hearing oral 

argument in January 2006; 

WHEREAS the Parties believe that extending the expert witness deadlines set 

forth in the Court’s October 18, 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 

the ends of justice and may avoid unnecessary costs; and

WHEREAS the Parties have previously requested two time modifications to the 

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

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The deadlines set forth in the Court’s October 18, 2005, Scheduling Order 

shall be modified as follows: 

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

is 45 days from the date the Court enters its order on Defendants’ 

Summary Judgment Motion; 

(b) the deadline to disclose rebuttal expert witnesses is 60 days from 

the date the Court enters its order on Defendants’ Summary 

Judgment Motion; 

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 67 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 3
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

DOCSSV1:450002.2 - 2 - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

MODIFYING EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE

DEADLINES (C-04-1787) 

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

proposed testimony of any expert is extended to 90 days from the 

expert witness disclosure deadline identified in paragraph 1(a) 

above;

(d) The discovery deadline is extended to 45 days from the expert 

witness disclosure deadline identified in paragraph 1(a) above, as to 

expert discovery only, and discovery shall remain closed for all 

non-expert discovery. 

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

Dated: March 6, 2006 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: March 6, 2006 WAUKEEN Q. MCCOY, ESQ. 

LAW OFFICES OF WAUKEEN Q. MCCOY 

 /s/ 

Waukeen Q. McCoy 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Nancy Zayed 

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________, 2006 

Hon. James Ware 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

March 9, 2006

Case 5:04-cv-01787-JW Document 67 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 3