Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07024/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07024-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

JOINT REQUEST FOR 14 DAY 

CONTINUANCE OF BRIEFING AND 

HEARING SCHEDULE

Page 1 of 6 Case No. 06-07024 PJH 

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

ANNA MARTIN (CA STATE BAR NO. 154279)

JOSEPH M. RIMAC

RIMAC & MARTIN

1051 Divisadero St

San Francisco Ca 94115-4409

Telephone: (415) 561-8440

Facsimile: (415) 5611-8430

Attorneys for Defendants

JULIAN M. BAUM (CA State Bar No. 130892)

THOMAS J. FUCHS

BAUM & WEEMS

9 Tenaya Lane

Novato, California 94947

Telephone: (415) 892-3152

Facsimile: (415) 892-3096

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Kimberly K. Gonzalez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIMBERLY K. GONZALEZ, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

AMERICA; ONE WORKPLACE L. 

FERRARI LONG TERM DISABILITY 

PLAN; ONE WORKPLACE L. FERRARI, in 

its capacity as Plan Administrator of the One 

Workplace L. Ferrari Long Term Disability 

Plan,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-07024 PJH

 

JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING 

14-DAY CONTINUANCE OF BRIEFING 

AND HEARING SCHEDULE

AND PROPOSED ORDER

Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07024-PJH Document 15 Filed 01/30/08 Page 1 of 6
JOINT REQUEST FOR 14 DAY 

CONTINUANCE OF BRIEFING AND 

HEARING SCHEDULE

Page 2 of 6 Case No. 06-07024 PJH 

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

For the reasons set forth below, the parties respectfully request that the Court 

permit a 14-day continuance of the present briefing and hearing schedule on the parties’ intended 

cross-motions for judgment in this case.

1. This is an action for disability benefits and related relief under the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA). The parties have 

completed ADR under the Court’s ADR Local Rules.

2. Under the Court’s Case Management Conference Order, the parties are scheduled 

to file cross-motions for judgment tomorrow, January 30, 2008, for hearing on a normal 35-day 

schedule. 

3. The parties respectfully request that the Court permit a 14-day continuance for the 

briefing and hearing dates as follows:

Cross-Motions for Judgment: February 13, 2008

Oppositions: February 27, 2008

Reply Briefs: March 5, 2008

Hearing: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 (or as soon 

thereafter as convenient to the Court’s 

calendar).

The parties believe that this requested extension will not interfere with any of the 

Court’s deadlines and will allow the parties to properly present the matter for resolution by the 

Court.

4. The parties urge that there is good cause for this request. More factual detail is 

set forth in the immediately following paragraphs 5 & 6. Counsel for defendants is primarily 

based in her firm’s Nevada office. The recent storms have made travel between San Francisco 

and that Nevada office especially difficult and the roads have from time to time been closed 

without warning. The record to be filed with the parties’ cross-motions exceeds 2000 pages. 

While the parties have been cooperating in the assembly of the record, it continues to be a timeconsuming and difficult task that is hampered by the difficulties defendants’ counsel has faced in 

physically traveling between the two offices of her firm. Both plaintiff’s and defendants’ 

26

Case 4:06-cv-07024-PJH Document 15 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 6
JOINT REQUEST FOR 14 DAY 

CONTINUANCE OF BRIEFING AND 

HEARING SCHEDULE

Page 3 of 6 Case No. 06-07024 PJH 

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

counsel are small firms with limited staff who are able to assist in any significant way. 

Moreover, as explained below, UNUM may need to augment the administrative record. If so, 

counsel for both parties will require time to integrate additional documents, if any, into their 

motions for summary judgment. 

5. Defendants’ counsel, Ms. Martin, had to appear in Federal District Court before 

Judge Patel on Monday, January 28, 2008 for a 2:00 p.m. appearance. Ms. Martin lives and 

works in Incline Village, Nevada. On her return home from Court her truck stopped due to some 

unknown electrical problem and left her stranded on the side of the road for three hours. She had 

to stay in a hotel in Sacramento overnight to arrange for her car to be towed to a repair shop. 

Ms. Martin rented a car to return home the following day, but was stuck in the storm that hit the 

Sierras and did not return until late afternoon today. Ms. Martin had planned to finalize the 

summary judgment all day today, but did not have any time to work on it, due to problems 

related to time spent dealing with her truck problems. Ms. Martin returned plaintiff counsel, Mr. 

Baum’s, telephone call from Monday regarding issues regarding the administrative record that 

will be filed with the Court. Ms. Martin relayed her saga and stated that she was exhausted and 

he indicated that he could use additional time to get the administrative record redacted and 

scanned as there are over 2,000 pages, many containing confidential information and potentially 

privileged. Based on this conversation, Ms. Martin and Mr. Baum jointly agreed to seek a one 

week continuance from the Court to file the cross motions for summary judgment.

6. Additional good cause exists, because defendants have recently determined that 

there are additional potentially relevant documents that will be produced to plaintiff. Claims 

executive Mary Spugnardi of UNUM, while reviewing the administrative record in order to 

execute a declaration in support of UNUM’s motion for summary judgment, determined that 

there is another claim number applicable to plaintiff in which some additional documents might 

exist. Accordingly, it may be necessary for UNUM to augment the administrative record. 

UNUM wants to err on the side of caution to make sure that UNUM has provided the entire 

record to plaintiff. 

Case 4:06-cv-07024-PJH Document 15 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 6
JOINT REQUEST FOR 14 DAY 

CONTINUANCE OF BRIEFING AND 

HEARING SCHEDULE

Page 4 of 6 Case No. 06-07024 PJH 

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

7. The parties believe that this requested extension will not interfere with any of the 

Court’s deadlines and will allow the parties to properly present the matter for resolution by the 

Court.

8. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court permit a 14-day 

continuance of the briefing and hearing schedule for their cross-motions.

Dated: January 29, 2008 ANNA MARTIN

RIMAC & MARTIN

 by___/s/ Anna Martin_________

 ANNA MARTIN

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: January 29, 2008 JULIAN M. BAUM

BAUM & WEEMS

 by__________ ______________

 JULIAN M. BAUM

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

[proposed Order on following page]

///

///

/s/ Julian M. Baum

Case 4:06-cv-07024-PJH Document 15 Filed 01/30/08 Page 4 of 6
JOINT REQUEST FOR 14 DAY 

CONTINUANCE OF BRIEFING AND 

HEARING SCHEDULE

Page 5 of 6 Case No. 06-07024 PJH 

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

[proposed] 

ORDER

The parties having stipulated as set forth above, and good cause appearing to the 

Court’s satisfaction,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _______________ ________________________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THE HEARING IS CONTINUED TO 3/26/08 AT 9:00 A.M. 1/30/08

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:06-cv-07024-PJH Document 15 Filed 01/30/08 Page 5 of 6
JOINT REQUEST FOR 14 DAY 

CONTINUANCE OF BRIEFING AND 

HEARING SCHEDULE

Page 6 of 6 Case No. 06-07024 PJH 

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

DECLARATION RE CONCURRENCE OF SIGNATORIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, N.D. CAL.

GENERAL ORDER 45

The undersigned ECF filer hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of the 

foregoing document has been obtained from counsel for defendants and that a record supporting 

this concurrence is available for inspection or production if so ordered.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: January 29, 2008 /s/ Julian M. Baum

Julian M. Baum

Case 4:06-cv-07024-PJH Document 15 Filed 01/30/08 Page 6 of 6