Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04726/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04726-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

Baker & McKenzie LLP 

660 Hansen Way 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

+1 650 856 2400 

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 

Case No. C-05-04726-RMW 

STIPULATION & ORDER [PROPOSED] TO VACATE HEARING DATE 

PALDMS/361894.1 

James J. Dries (Pro Hac Vice) 

Mark L. Karasik (Pro Hac Vice) 

Thomas A. Doyle (Pro Hac Vice) 

BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 

One Prudential Plaza 

130 E. Randolph Drive 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Telephone: +1 312.861.8000 

Facsimile: +1 312.861.2899 

james.j.dries@bakernet.com

mark.l.karasik@bakernet.com

thomas.a.doyle@bakernet.com

Tod L. Gamlen, State Bar No. 83458 

BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 

660 Hansen Way 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1044 

Telephone: +1.650.856.2400 

Facsimile: +1.650.856.9299 

tod.l.gamlen@bakernet.com

Attorneys for Defendants 

Conseco, Inc., 40|86 Advisors, Inc., Conseco 

Services, L.L.C., and Conseco Marking, L.L.C. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re CONSECO INSURANCE CO. 

ANNUITY MARKETING & SALES 

PRACTICES LITIG. 

This Case Relates To: 

 ALL ACTIONS. 

Case No. C-05-04726-RMW 

And Related Cases 

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

[PROPOSED] TO VACATE HEARING 

DATE ON MOTION TO COMPEL 

AND TO RESCHEDULE (IF 

NECESSARY) 

Date: March 19, 2008 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Courtroom: 4, 5th Floor (Hon. Richard 

Seeborg) 

STIPULATION

Plaintiffs and the Defendants, CONSECO, INC., 40|86 ADVISORS, INC., CONSECO 

SERVICES, L.L.C. and CONSECO MARKETING, L.L.C., by and through their respective counsel, 

hereby stipulate and agree to the following: 

*E-FILED 3/5/08*

Case 5:05-cv-04726-RMW Document 130 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 5
Baker & McKenzie LLP 

Palo Alto 

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 

Case No. C-05-04726-RMW 

STIPULATION & ORDER [PROPOSED] TO VACATE HEARING DATE 

PALDMS/361894.1 

1. The hearing date on Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Production of Documents and 

Interrogatory Responses from Defendants Conseco, Inc., 40|86 Advisors, Inc., Conseco Marketing, 

L.L.C., and Conseco Services, L.L.C. (“Motion to Compel”) (Doc. Nos. 117-118) currently 

scheduled before this Court on March 19, 2008 be vacated, without prejudice. The parties have 

separately stipulated and agreed to an extension of time until April 1, 2008 for Defendants to 

respond to Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional discovery requests and therefore a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion 

to Compel is not necessary on March 19, 2008. 

2. Plaintiffs may re-notice their Motion to Compel for a date after April 1, 2008 if any 

issues remain with respect to Defendants’ jurisdictional discovery responses. 

Dated: March 4, 2008 

 /s/ John L. Haeussler 

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 

John L. Haeussler 

402 West Broadway 

Suite 850 

San Diego, CA 92101 

(619) 230-0800 

 /s/ James J. Dries 

BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 

James J. Dries 

One Prudential Plaza 

130 East Randolph Drive 

Suite 3500 

Chicago, IL 60601 

(312) 861-8000 

Case 5:05-cv-04726-RMW Document 130 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 5
Baker & McKenzie LLP 

Palo Alto 

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 

 3 

Case No. C-05-04726-RMW 

STIPULATION & ORDER [PROPOSED] TO VACATE HEARING DATE 

PALDMS/361894.1 

ORDER [PROPOSED]

The Court having considered the above stipulation and good cause appearing it is HEREBY 

ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The March 19, 2008 hearing date on Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Production of 

Documents and Interrogatory Responses from Defendants Conseco, Inc., 40|86 Advisors, Inc., 

Conseco Marketing, L.L.C., and Conseco Services, L.L.C. (“Motion to Compel”) (Doc. Nos. 117-

118) is vacated, without prejudice. 

2. Plaintiffs may re-notice their Motion to Compel for a date after April 1, 2008 if any 

issues remain with respect to Defendants’ jurisdictional discovery responses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March _____, 2008 

United States Magistrate Judge 

5

Case 5:05-cv-04726-RMW Document 130 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 5
Case 5:05-cv-04726-RMW Document 130 Filed 03/05/08 Page 4 of 5
Case 5:05-cv-04726-RMW Document 130 Filed 03/05/08 Page 5 of 5