Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00630/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00630-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE – CASE NO. 5:06-CV-00630-JW 

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 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Patrick Gibbs (Bar No. 183174) 

Peter T. Snow (Bar No. 222117) 

140 Scott Drive 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: (650) 328-4600 

Facsimile: (650) 463-2600 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ARTHROCARE CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

PEMSTAR, INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ARTHROCARE CORPORATION, and 

DOES 1 TO 10 INCLUSIVE, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 5:06-CV-00630-JW 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE 

Honorable James Ware 

WHEREAS, on December 12, 2005, Pemstar, Inc. (“Pemstar”) commenced this action in 

the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara; 

WHEREAS, on January 30, 2006, defendant ArthroCare Corporation (“ArthroCare”) 

removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); 

WHEREAS, on February 6, 2006, ArthroCare filed its answer to Pemstar’s complaint; 

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2006, the Court entered the Case Management Order, which set 

the Case Schedule in this action; 

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding a potential resolution of this 

action without further litigation; 

WHEREAS, the parties have delayed engaging in significant discovery, including the 

-----------------

Case 5:06-cv-00630-JW Document 23 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

 SV\545156.1 

2

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE – CASE NO. 5:06-CV-00630-JW 

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 

taking of depositions and expert discovery, pending the outcome of the parties’ discussions 

regarding the potential resolution of this action without further litigation; 

WHEREAS, the parties have scheduled a mediation on March 9, 2007, to further discuss 

the potential resolution of this action without further litigation; 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that continuing the case schedule would conserve judicial 

resources by permitting the parties to prepare for the March 9, 2007 mediation and to continue 

their settlement negotiations before engaging in additional discovery and preparing this action 

for trial; 

THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate, and request the Court to order, that the case 

schedule, including all fact and expert discovery deadlines, for this action be continued by 60 

days as set forth below: 

 Case Schedule

Preliminary Pretrial Conference and Trial Setting 

Conference (¶ 12) August 31, 2007

Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statements 

Due (10 days before conference) (¶ 11) August 21, 2007

Last Date for Hearing 

Dispositive Motions (¶ 10) 

(42 days before Preliminary Pretrial Conference) July 20, 2007

Close of Discovery (¶ 9) June 5, 2007

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: February 12, 2007

BARTLETT, LEADER-PICONE & YOUNG, 

LLP 

 Kaipo K.B. Young 

By /S/ 

Kaipo K.B. Young 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

PEMSTAR INC. 

Septermber 10 2007 @ 11:00 AM 

 XXXXXXXXXXX

 August 31 2007 

 XXXXXXXXXX -----------

Case 5:06-cv-00630-JW Document 23 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

 SV\545156.1 

3

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE CASE SCHEDULE – CASE NO. 5:06-CV-00630-JW 

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 

Dated: February 12, 2007 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

 Patrick Gibbs 

 Peter T. Snow 

By /S/ 

Peter T. Snow 

Attorneys for Defendant 

ARTHROCARE CORPORATION 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X.B regarding signatures, I attest 

under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from 

Kaipo K.B. Young. 

* * * 

ORDER 

 Pursuant to the stipulation of counsel, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ 

The Honorable James Ware 

United States District Judge 

2/13/2007 ----------

Case 5:06-cv-00630-JW Document 23 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 3