Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02898/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02898-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 

US_WEST:260071230.1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONTINUING DUE DATE OF PARTIES’ INITIAL

DISCLOSURES (CASE NO. C 06 2898 EMC) 

MARK A. NEUBAUER (State Bar No. 73728) 

REBECCA EDELSON (State Bar No. 150464) 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 

Los Angeles, California 90067-5052 

Telephone: 310-734-3200 

Facsimile: 310-734-3300 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. 

GARY E. WEISS (State Bar No. 122962) 

DENISE M. MINGRONE (State Bar No. 135224) 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

1000 Marsh Road 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: 650-614-7400 

Facsimile: 650-614-7401 

MICHAEL D. WEIL (State Bar No. 209056) 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

The Orrick Building 

405 Howard Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2669 

Telephone: 415-773-5700 

Facsimile: 415-773-5759 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Genentech, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, 

INC., a Florida corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware corporation; 

and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C 06 2898 SC 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER CONTINUING DUE DATE 

OF PARTIES’ INITIAL 

DISCLOSURES AND DISCUSSION 

OF DISCOVERY PLAN PURSUANT 

TO F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1) 

Case 3:06-cv-02898-SC Document 32 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 3
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 

US_WEST:260071230.1 1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

CONTINUING DUE DATE OF PARTIES’ INITIAL

DISCLOSURES (CASE NO. C 06 2898 EMC) 

Plaintiff Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., on the one hand, and Defendant 

Genentech, Inc., on the other hand, through their respective counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(E), HEREBY STIPULATE and AGREE as follows: 

On July 25, 2006, the Court executed the parties’ stipulation and order that initial 

disclosures and discussion of a discovery plan shall be postponed until 30 calendar days after the 

Court’s ruling on Genentech’s motion to dismiss or 10 court days after filing of the Answer to the 

operative complaint, whichever is earlier. On August 3, 2006, the Court granted Genentech’s 

motion to dismiss all of J&J Vision’s claims and gave J&J Vision 30 days to file an amended 

complaint. Accordingly, the parties’ initial disclosures would be due the same day that J&J 

Vision’s amended complaint is due. Genentech contends that the initial disclosures and 

discussion of a discovery plan should wait until the Answer is filed so the scope of the pleadings 

and, thus, discovery will be more settled. 

Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree that initial disclosures and discussion of a 

discovery plan shall be further postponed until 30 calendar days after the filing of the Answer to 

an operative Complaint. This agreement does not prejudice either party’s right to seek or object 

to further extensions of the deadlines for initial disclosures and/or discussion of a discovery plan. 

SO STIPULATED: 

Case 3:06-cv-02898-SC Document 32 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 3
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 

US_WEST:260071230.1 - 2 - DEFENDANT GENENTECH’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(CASE NO. C 06 2898 EMC) 

Dated: August 15, 2006 MARK A. NEUBAUER 

REBECCA EDELSON 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

By: /s/ 

Rebecca Edelson 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. 

Dated: August 15, 2006 GARY E. WEISS 

DENISE M. MINGRONE 

MICHAEL D. WEIL 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

By: / s / 

Michael D. Weil 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Genentech, Inc. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________ 

 

The Honorable Samuel Conti 

United States District Court Judge 

8/21/06

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:06-cv-02898-SC Document 32 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 3