Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00355/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00355-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

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

O’DONNELL & ASSOCIATES PC 

PIERCE O'DONNELL (State Bar No. 081298) 

ROBERT M. PARTAIN (State Bar No. 221477) 

550 South Hope Street, Suite 1000 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 347-0290 

Fax: (213) 347-0299 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

and Putative Class 

[Additional Counsel On Signature Block] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CAROLYN BOYLE, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MERCK & CO., INC., and SCHERINGPLOUGH CORP., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2:08-cv-00355-LEW-EFB 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER, 

MOVE OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT PENDING DECISION ON 

TRANSFER BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

HERE COME the Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their counsel, and hereby 

stipulate as follows: 

1. That Plaintiff caused the Complaint, the First Amended Complaint, and the 

Summons to be served on Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. on February 26, 2008; 

2. That Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. and Schering-Plough Corp. are represented by 

Reed Smith LLP and Steven Boranian from Reed Smith LLP; 

3. That a hearing before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) has 

been scheduled in Austin, Texas for March 27, 2008 involving the centralization of this, and 

other, pending actions involving the pharmaceuticals Vytorin and Zetia; 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-00355-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 2
2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

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. That Defendants wish to defer their response to Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint until the conclusion of the JPML hearing. 

Dated: March 4, 2008 O’DONNELL & ASSOCIATES P.C. 

 By:______/s/ Robert M. Partain_____________

 Robert M. Partain, Esq. 

 Pierce O’Donnell, Esq. 

 O’DONNELL & ASSOCIATES P.C. 

 550 South Hope Street, Suite 1000 

 Los Angeles, California 90071 

 Tel: (213) 347-0290 

 Fax: (213) 347-0299 

Dated: March 4, 2008 REED SMITH LLP 

 By:_/s/ Steven Boranian (as authorized on 3/5/08)_

 Steven Boranian, Esq. 

 REED SMITH LLP 

 Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2000 

 San Francisco, California 94111 

 Tel: (415) 543-8700 

 Fax: (415) 391-8269 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Defendants shall notify the Court of the decision 

of the JPML within three business days after the JPML issues its decision; (2) that the time 

within which the Defendants may answer, move or otherwise respond to the First Amended 

Complaint in the above matter is hereby extended to a date to be set at the first scheduling 

conference after the JPML issues its decision; and (3) that if the Defendants file a responsive 

pleading in any other similar action pending in another federal district court, they shall notify the 

Plaintiff’s counsel before filing such a pleading, and the Plaintiff may then file a motion to 

amend this Order. Defendants reserve the right to oppose such a motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED – 03/06/2008 

/s/ Ronald S. W. Lew________________

 HON. RONALD S.W. LEW, U.S.D.J. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-00355-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2