Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01947/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01947-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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: 2:06-CV-01947-LKK-GGH – STIPULATION

REGARDING DISCOVERY

Robert W. Mills (SBN 62154)

Harry Shulman (SBN 209908)

THE MILLS LAW FIRM

145 Marina Boulevard

San Rafael, CA 94901

Tel: (415) 455-1326

Michael F. Ram (SBN 104805)

Erica L. Craven (SBN 199918)

LEVY, RAM & OLSON, LLP

639 Front St., 4 Floor th

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: (415) 433-4949

(additional counsel on signature page)

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Class Members, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROMEO BRAVO, INC., RONALD J.

BROWN, and DANA POPE, for themselves

and a class of others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. 

LYCOMING ENGINES, a Division of

Avco Corporation; AVCO

CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 2:06-CV-01947-LKK-GGH

STIPULATION REGARDING

DISCOVERY

In order to avoid duplicative discovery, Plaintiffs and Defendants (“Party” or “Parties”)

hereby agree that any depositions taken in Civil Action Numbers 06-2993 (Powers v. Lycoming

Engines, et al.) or 06-4228 (Plane Time, LLC v. Lycoming Engines, et al.), which are

consolidated and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Case 2:06-cv-01947-LKK -GGH Document 113 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 4
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: 2:06-CV-01947-LKK-GGH – STIPULATION

REGARDING DISCOVERY

Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania Litigation”), will be available for use in Civil Action Number 2:06-

cv-01947-LKK-GGH (Bristow v. Lycoming Engines, et al.) (“California Litigation”) and that any

depositions taken in the California Litigation shall be available for use in the Pennsylvania

Litigation.

The Parties further agree that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to any such

deposition as if the deposition was taken in the other Litigation. No party will notice the

deposition of any particular deponent, including a 30(b)(6) deponent, more than once in either

Litigation, i.e., a person’s or 30(b)(6) deponent’s deposition can be taken only once in either the

California Litigation or the Pennsylvania Litigation but not both, unless by stipulation or by leave

of court. Only one set of objections to each deposition notice can be made and any such

objections must be served in the Litigation under which the deposition notice was issued. 

Similarly, any motions regarding the deposition must be filed with the court that has jurisdiction

over the Litigation under which the deposition notice was issued.

With respect to written discovery, the Parties agree that written responses and documents

produced in either the Pennsylvania Litigation or the California Litigation will be available for

use in the other Litigation.

The Parties agree to make a good-faith effort to avoid serving written discovery requests

that duplicate requests served in the other Litigation. If, however, a Party believes that a

particular Interrogatory or Request for Admission served under Rules 33 or 36 duplicates or

overlaps one served in the other Litigation, the Party may object and incorporate their prior

answer in response as appropriate. Similarly, if a Party believes a particular Request for

Production served under Rule 34 duplicates or overlaps one served in the other Litigation, the

Party may respond by identifying by bates number the responsive documents produced in the

other Litigation.

Any objections with respect to a written discovery request should be served in the

Litigation under which the discovery request was issued. Similarly, any motion with respect to a

Case 2:06-cv-01947-LKK -GGH Document 113 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 4
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: 2:06-CV-01947-LKK-GGH – STIPULATION

REGARDING DISCOVERY

written discovery request must be filed with the court that has jurisdiction over the Litigation

under which the discovery request was issued.

DATED: __8/3/07________ /s/ Robert. W. Mills______ 

Robert W. Mills

Harry Shulman

THE MILLS LAW FIRM

145 Marina Blvd.

San Rafael, CA 94901

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: __8/3/07_________ /s/ Erica L. Craven_______ 

Michael F. Ram

Erica L. Craven

LEVY, RAM & OLSON, LLP

639 Front St., 4 Flr th

San Francisco, CA 94111

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: ___8/3/07_________ /s/ Jonathan Shub________ 

Jonathan Shub

Seeger Weiss LLP

1515 Market Street, Suite 1380

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: __8/3/07____________ /s/ Kathy Bailey__________ 

 

Kathy Bailey

Bailey Law Group, P.C.

1615 L Street, NW

Suite 1350

Washington, DC 20036

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: __8/3/07____________ /s/ Michele S. Burkholder___ 

Joseph F. Roda

Michele S. Burkholder

RodaNast, P.C

801 Estelle Drive

Lancaster, PA 17601

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:06-cv-01947-LKK -GGH Document 113 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 4
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

-4-

Case No: 2:06-CV-01947-LKK-GGH – STIPULATION

REGARDING DISCOVERY

DATED: ___8/3/07___________ /s/ Jennifer L. Gardner______ 

John R. Climaco

Jennifer L. Gardner

Lisa Ann Gorshe

Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox &

Garofoli Co., LPA

55 Public Square,

Suite 1950

Cleveland, OH 44113

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: __8/3/07__________ /s/ Keith T. Vernon_____ 

 

Keith T. Vernon

The Vernon Law

888 16th Street NW

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20006 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: September 14, 2007 /s/ Marla R. Weston

Timothy J. Ryan

Marla R. Weston

RYAN & FONG

2379 Gateway Oaks Dr., Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95833

Attorneys for Defendant AVCO Corporation

and its Lycoming Engines Division in the

California Litigation

DATED: September 14, 2007 /s/ Catherine B. Slavin

Catherine B. Slavin

COZEN O’CONNOR

1900 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorneys for Defendant AVCO Corporation,

on behalf of its Lycoming Engines Division

in the Pennsylvania Litigation

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2007.

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01947-LKK -GGH Document 113 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 4