Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05695/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05695-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

M. Jean Starcevich (SBN 78298) 

770 Lincoln Avenue 

San Jose, CA 95126 

Telephone: 408-287-7787 

Facsimile: 408-287-8862 

Timothy T. Scott (SBN 126971) 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

555 California Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, California 94104-1715 

Telephone: 415-772-1200 

Facsimile: 415-772-7400 

tscott@sidley.com

Victoria L. Donati (admitted Pro Hac Vice)

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP 

Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200 

Chicago, IL 60602-3801 

Telephone: 312-269-8000 

Facsimile: 312 269-3016

vdonati@ngelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Euromarket Designs, Inc., 

d/b/a Crate and Barrel 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

GINGER KIERNAN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a 

CRATE AND BARREL, and DOES 1 

through 10, 

Defendants.

Case No. C 03 05695 JW 

FOURTH STIPULATION EXTENDING

DEADLINES SET FORTH IN COURT’S 

SCHEDULING ORDER OF AUGUST 12, 

2004, AS AMENDED BY ORDERS 

DATED JUNE 13, 2005, OCTOBER 27, 

2005, AND DECEMBER 7, 2005; AND 

[PROPOSED] AMENDED 

SCHEDULING ORDER

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME

WHEREAS, by Stipulation dated December 7, 2005, and Order dated December 7, 2005, this 

Court set various dates for the disclosure of expert witnesses and rebuttal expert witnesses, motions

to exclude expert witnesses on the basis of their qualifications, and certain other pretrial deadlines;

WHEREAS, both counsel for Plaintiff Ginger Kiernan and counsel for Defendant 

Euromarket Designs, Inc., d/b/a Crate and Barrel have been actively engaged in completing the 

Fourth Stipulation to Extend Time Case No. C 03 05695 JW

and [Proposed] Amended Scheduling Order

SF1 1427257v.1

Case 5:03-cv-05695-JW Document 56 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 5
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

required disclosures and applicable discovery, and obtaining information required by the applicable 

rebuttal expert witnesses, if any, to complete their reports as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 

WHEREAS, the parties have now agreed to enter into private mediation, with the assistance

of JAMS, before Judge Edward Infante, with a mediation conference scheduled for March 9, 2006, 

which was the first available date for the selected mediator and the parties, along with their 

respective counsel. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties have met and conferred and again agreed, subject to this 

Court’s approval, to a short continuance and adjustment of the remaining deadlines and to a proposal

for entry of a new Scheduling Order, as follows: 

A. Rebuttal Expert Witnesses

1. If the testimony of the expert is intended solely to contradict or rebut opinion 

testimony on the same subject matter identified by another party, the party proferring a rebuttal 

expert shall make the disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(B), no later than January 13, 

2006. (This has been completed, but for the report of Defendants’ rebuttal experts, which will be 

forthcoming, but was delayed as Plaintiff’s examination took place on January 12, 2006.)

B. Limitation on Testimony by Expert Witnesses

2. Unless the parties enter into a written stipulation otherwise, upon timely objection, an 

expert witness shall be precluded from testifying about any actions or opinions not disclosed prior to 

the expert’s deposition. This is to ensure that all factual material upon which expert opinion may be

based and all tests and reports are completed prior to the expert deposition. Unless application is

made prior to the close of expert discovery, each party will be limited to calling only one expert 

witness in each discipline involved in the case. 

C. Close of Discovery

3. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 26-2, all discovery, including supplemental disclosure, 

depositions of expert witnesses, must be completed by April 10, 2006.

 2

Fourth Stipulation to Extend Time Case No. C 03-05695 JW

and [Proposed] Amended Scheduling Order

SF1 1427257v.1

Case 5:03-cv-05695-JW Document 56 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 5
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

D. Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions

4. The last day for hearing dispositive motions is May 15, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. Any 

motions must be noticed in accordance with the Local Rules of this Court. 

E. Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference

Statement and Proposed Order

5. The attorneys who will try to the case are ordered to confer with one another and to 

file and lodge with Chambers on June 2, 2006, a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference

Statement and Proposed Order, stating their readiness for trial, the amount of which in which the 

Court should allocate for trial and the calendar period for the trial. Ordinarily, depending on the 

length of the trial the Court will set the trial during a calendar period approximately three to four 

months after the Preliminary and Trial Setting Conference. In the Statement discussed in this 

paragraph, the parties should show any cause why the case should be advanced or delayed beyond 

this period. 

6. The attorneys who will try to the case are ordered to appear on June 12, 2006, at

11:00 a.m. for a Preliminary Pretrial and Trial Setting Conference. 

7. With respect to the time allocation for trial, at the Preliminary Pretrial and Trial

Setting Conference trial counsel will be asked to stipulate to a time allocation to each side for the

trial of the case. Once a stipulated allocation has been entered, the parties must plan their 

presentations to conform to the stipulated time allocation. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 3

Fourth Stipulation to Extend Time Case No. C 03-05695 JW

and [Proposed] Amended Scheduling Order

SF1 1427257v.1

Case 5:03-cv-05695-JW Document 56 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 5
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

8. With respect to the calendar period for trial, based on the time allotted to the case, a 

calendar period for trial will be set. In the event it becomes necessary to delay the start of trial 

because of the Court’s calendar, the commencement date will trail from day-to-day until the other

matter is concluded or further order of court. 

SO STIPULATED:

DATED: January 24, 2006 By: /S/ 

 M. Jean Starcevich

 Attorney for Plaintiff GINGER KIERNAN

DATED: January 24, 2006 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

By: /S/

 Timothy T. Scott

 Victoria L. Donati

NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant 

EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. 

d/b/a CRATE AND BARREL1

 4

Fourth Stipulation to Extend Time Case No. C 03-05695 JW

and [Proposed] Amended Scheduling Order

1 We attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories.

SF1 1427257v.1

Case 5:03-cv-05695-JW Document 56 Filed 01/26/06 Page 4 of 5
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] AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER 

Upon reading the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, the Court

hereby adopts the amended schedule as proposed by the parties and issues an Amended Scheduling 

Order in accordance with the time deadlines as set forth in that stipulation.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: __________________________ 

 HONORABLE JAMES WARE

JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES

 DISTRICT COURT

 5

Fourth Stipulation to Extend Time Case No. C 03-05695 JW

and [Proposed] Amended Scheduling Order

SF1 1427257v.1

January 26, 2006

Case 5:03-cv-05695-JW Document 56 Filed 01/26/06 Page 5 of 5