Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05232/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05232-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAN L. WHITNEY, JANET R.

HADLEY, MARGARET A. KORNOWBROWN, ERIC BRELLE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARLES WURTZ, VERISCAPE, INC.,

RENEE TADLOCK, REGINA

RYGELIS, WILL ARNTZ, SAM

JACOBS, GARY BERKOWITS, BRIAN

ROE and DOES 1-20,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 04-5232 PVT

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS AND REQUIRING

PLAINTIFFS TO SUBMIT A

DECLARATION RE: HEARING

DATE FOR DEFENDANTS ARNTZ

AND JACOB’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On October 6, 2006, Defendants’ Arntz and Jacobs moved for summary judgment,

claiming that there is no evidence that they are the alter egos of Veriscape and that alter ego is

the sole basis for liability against them.1

 The hearing was set for November 14, 2006. On

October 18, 2006, Plaintiff Dan Whitney (“Whitney”) moved to continue the summary judgment

hearing under Local Rule 6-3. On November 6, 2006, the court granted the motion to continue

with the intention that a hearing date would be set at the next case management conference. 

Case 5:04-cv-05232-PVT Document 191 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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 2

If the parties can agree upon a hearing date for the motion, they may submit a stipulation and

proposed order in lieu of the declarations required or allowed by this Order.

ORDER, page 2

Despite extensive efforts by the Court, the parties were unable to set a date for the hearing of the

motion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than January 5, 2007, Plaintiffs

shall submit a declaration setting forth how much time they need to respond to Defendants

Arntz and Jacob’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs shall specify an appropriate date for

hearing the motion. As mentioned repeatedly at the case management conference, it is not

sufficient for Plaintiffs to suggest the last day for hearing dispositive motions. Plaintiffs shall be

specific as to the discovery they need and the time they need to acquire the discovery. No later

than January 12, 2007, Defendants Arntz and Jacobs may file a declaration as to why the hearing

date proposed by Plaintiffs should be altered.2

On November 20, 2006, Whitney filed a Motion for Order Releasing Documents from

Protective Order, setting the hearing date for January 30, 2007. On the same day, Defendant

Veriscape filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents, setting the hearing for January

16, 2007. Accordingly,

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing date for Defendant Veriscape’s Motion to

Compel Further Responses to Demands for Production of Documents is continued to January 30,

2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: December 15, 2006

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-05232-PVT Document 191 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2