Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00247/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00247-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

WILUAM A. MARKHAM*

DIREO': (619) 221-4418

E-MAIL: wm@maldonadomarkham.com

ANTONIO MALDONADO*

DIREO': (619) 819-5166

E-MAIL: am@maldonadomarkham.c~m

MALDONADO & MARKHAM, LLP

ATIORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

402 WEST BROADWAY, 24m FLOOR

SAN DIEGO; CA 92101-3549

(619) 221-4400 (TEL.)

(619) 224c3974 (FAX)

www.maldonadomarkham.com

MEXICO OFFICE:

GUADALUPEvrO'ORIA 2306-201, ZONA RIO

TIJUANA, BAJA CALIFORNIA, 22010, MExrCO

+52 664 - 200 - 2392 (TEL.)

+52664-200-2536 (FAX)

BY E-FILING (WITH COURTESY COPY)

March 6, 2008

The Honorable Susan Illston

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 19th Floor, Courtroom 10

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Jensen Enterprises, Inc. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc. et al

Case No. C-06-002-47 SI

Dear Judge Illston:

I represent the plaintiff in the above case, Jensen Enterprises, Inc. ("Jensen"). The other

parties to this case are Defendant Oldcastle Precast, Inc. ("Oldcastle") as well as Defendants

Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, and AT&T Services, Inc.

(collectively, "AT&T").

I have served a copy of this letter on the other attorneys of record in this case.

On March 3,2008, AT&T and Jensen submitted a stipulation to Magistrate Judge Spero.

By this stipulation, AT&T and Jensen agreed that Jensen could conduct further discovery on the

prices that AT&T has paid to developers for concrete manholes and boxes in California and

Nevada during the relevant periods in this case. Among other things, AT&T and Jensen agreed

that, subject to the Court's approval, Jensen could depose a number of AT&T employees as well

as a substantial number of non-parties (property developers and contractors). The parties further

agreed that, subject to the Court's approval, the cut-off date for percipient discovery would be

extended so as to accommodate this discovery.

On March 5, 2008, Judge Spero issued an order on this stipulation, approving of its

provisions, save that the parties must seek approval from Judge Illston for any proposed

*ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON, D.C.

*ADMITTED IN MEXICO, CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK

,

Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 290 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 2

The Court approves Judge Spero's

suggestions

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 292 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 2
The Honorable Susan Illston

Page 2

March 6, 2008

extension of percipient discovery. The current cut-off date for percipient discovery is March 28,

2008.

The discovery contemplated by the above stipulation is substantial and cannot be

completed before March 28, 2008.

Jensen therefore requests guidance from the Court on this issue: Should the parties brief

the Court on the contemplated discovery with a suggested discovery plan and a suggested

extension? If so, Jensen respectfully requests that the Court order the parties to submit this plan

by a date certain. In the alternative, Jensen respectfully requests that the Court convene a short

hearing at which these matters can be addressed or that it give Jensen leave to make an ex parte

application for an extension of the discovery cut-off.

I thank the Court for its attention to this matter.

Respectfull y submitted,

{vJ-t' .ftI---

William A. Markham,

Attorney for Jensen Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff.

WAM/jo

cc: Janine Scancarelli, Esq.

Raymond P. Bolanos, Esq.

Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 290 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 2 of 2 Case 3:06-cv-00247-SI Document 292 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 2