Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06507/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06507-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

il

12

l3

L4

15

16

T7

18

19

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

CRAIG NEEDHAM (SBN s2o1 0)

TilRSTEN FISH (SB #217940)

NEEDHAM, DAVIS, KEPNER, & YOUNG, LLP

1960 The Alameda, Suite 210

San Jose, CL95l26 Tel: (408)244-2166

Fax: (408)244-7815

TINSMAN & SCIANO, NC.

DANIEL J.T. SCIANO (appearingpro hacvice)

One Riverwalk Place, l4t" Floor

700 Nor"th St. Mary's Street

Sær Antonio, Texas 78205

Teleplrone: (210) 225 -3 121

Fax: (210) 225-6235

Attorneys for Plaintiffs JEREMY JAI{ES

EHART, KRISTY EHART, ANd STEVEN

RYAI.{ MoCLA}{AHAN

IN THE TJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTzuCT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JEREMY JAMES EHART, KRISTY

EHART, and STEVEN RYAN

McCLANAHAN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GHILLIE SUITS.COM INC.; TODD

MUIRHEAD; NEW YORK FIRE-SHIELD

INCORPORATED; WACI(ENHUT

SERVICES, INCORPORATED; THE

WACI(ENHUT CORPORATION; and

DOESl-50,inclusive,

{NDl(Y Main\61 83\71353\PLEADING\0009ó278.DOC}

Stipulation nnd [Proposedj Order Anrending Scheduling Order

No. C 06-06507 JW

STTPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

AMENDING SCIIEDULING ORDER

Defendants.

Come now, (1) Plaintiffs Jeremy James Ehart, IQ'isty Ehatt, and Steven Ryan McClanahan;

(2) Defendant Ghillie Suits.Com, Inc.; (3) Defendant Todd Muirhead; (4) DefendantNew York

File-shielcl Incorporatecl; (5) Defenclant Wackenhut Services, lncotporatecl; anci (6) Defendant The

Wackenhut Corporation; and file this Stipulæion requesting the Coult to euter ær Agreed Amended

Scheduling Orcler in this case and as grounds therefore, would show the Court as follows:

-1-

CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 87 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 7
)

6

7

I

2

J

4

8

9

10

l1

t2

t3

t4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

1. On July 9,2007, an Order to Amend the Scheduling Order was enterecl in this case

which included the following:

Deadline to Disclose Expert'Witnesses and serve resumes

and reports 63 da.vs before tlæ close of dßcovery)

April4,2008

Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions

60 døvs before Prelimùnarv Pretríø.l Conference)

May 8,2008

Close of All Discovery June 6,2008

Preliminary Pretrial Conference at l1 a.m. July 7,2008

Preliminary Pretrinl Conference Statements

(Due 10 davs before conference)

June 27,2008

2. Since that time, three more depositions have taken place incltrding the continuation

of the deposition of Todd Muirhead on September L8,2007, and the deposition of Southwest

Reseatclr Institute's Joe Anderson and CompleteSeal's Cluis Amurdsen on October 29,2007.

Dur.ing this series of depositions, it was discovered that another entity was involved in the chain of

distrib¡tio¡ of one of the products at issue in this tnattet, "lnspecta-Shielcl" fire letarclant. In light of

th.is new information, Plaintiffs have been worlcing on an Arnended Cornplaint. This Plaíntffi'

First Amended Complaint alongwith a Stipulation to Amend Plaìntffi' Contplaint has been

forwarded to all attolneys of record for their approval'

3. Additionally, as indicated in the prior Orcler, the parties have been working to

coor.dinate with numerous legal depaúments fi'om sevelal govemrnental entities. This process in

itself is very time consnming ancl cunbersome because of the liighly sensitive naturc of the

operation in question and the chain of corunand that each depaÍment must go tluottgh in order to

produce the documents that ale relevant and employees that are needed for deposition. This has

greatly affected the parties' ability to complete discovery. The Plaintiffs have been working with

the San Diego Ofüce of Judge Advocate to try and coordinate depositions and/or teleconferences

with the Marines who witnessed the incident or played a significant lole before, during or after

Exercise Pacific Patriot, the exercise at which the inciclent nrade the basis of this lawsuit occun'ed.

Altlrough we have been in constant commrurication with the JAG office for ovel ayea\ we have had

no success in scheduling these crucial teleconferences, tnuch less depositions. The San Diego Judge

Advocate General's office has indicated that they have been trying to cooldinate with each of the

(NDt(Y Main\6 I 83\7 I 353\PLEADING\00096278.DOC)

Stipulation ond [Proposed] Order Amending Scheduling Order -2-

CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507'JW

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 87 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 7
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

t0

11

12

13

t4

15

16

17

18

19

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

JAG offices which have jurisdiction over each Marine and that the hold up is on the other end; not

theirs.

4. The attorneys for Wackenhut Seruices, Inc. have also been working with the

goveulnent to try and coordinate depositions of the Department of Energy persorurel who were

involvecl in Exercise Pacific Pahiot. Six different depositions were scheduled in December and

January. Each of these depositions had to be cancelled due to the organization's inability to produce

the documents which will be needed for each deposition. These clepositions are expected to talce

place in the next few months and the parties are coordinating with regard to both dates and

Iocations.

5. Again, numerous additional depositions remain to be cornpletecl, additional

docurnents remain to be exchanged, and certain insruance issues which have given rise to legal

proceedings in state court coupled with the facts set out above militate towald furthel extensions of

discovery and expert disclosures in this matter. In addition, the deployment of numerous witnesses

ont of state and out of the country makes completion of discovery irnprobable within the previously

expected tirne period.

6. This Motion is not made for purposes of clelay btrt so that jtrstice rnay be done. All

parties unanirnously agree that a reasonable extension is necessaly, based upon ntunerous issues

including some of which are set out above.

7. Based on the foregoing, all parties jointþ move the Corut to extend the crurent

deadlines set out in the Scheduling Orderled entered on July 9,2007 . The parties jointly and

turanimously move that the attached proposed Arnended Agreed Scheduling Order subrnitted by all

parties be entered by the Court.

Deadline to Disclose Dxpert Witnesses and serve resumes

and renorts 63 davs before the close of discoverv)

October 13,2008

Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions

(60 davs before Prelímínøry Pretriøl Conference)

November 13,2008

Close of All Discovery December 15,2008

Preliminary Pretrial Conference at lL a.m. January 12,2009

Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statements

(Due 10 clcrs before conference)

January 212009

lNDl(Y Mnin\6 I 83\7 I 353\PLEADING\00096278.DOC)

Stipulotion and [Proposed] Order Amending Scheduling Order -3-

CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-IW

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 87 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 7
1

2

.3

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

il

t2

t3

t4

l5

l6

17

r8

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

Dated:

Dated¡

INDKY M0ir¡\61 83\7t 353\PLEAD¡NO\00096278.DOC1

Stipulntion ond [Proposcd] Ordcr Ancndlng Schedulíng Order

Respoctfully submitted,

Tnrsn¡¡x & Sctllrlo, Ituc

Daniel J. T, Sciano

And

Nuunnlnn, DAws, KErNER & youNc, LLp

Craig Needham

Attorneys for Plaintiffs .TEREMY JAMES

EHART, KRISTY EHART and STEVEN

RYANMCCLANAHAN

Mn¡r¡¡rrc & Manuon, Klss, ELLnou,

R.l¡urnuzLLP

' Mike Smlth

Attorneys for Defendants WACKENHUT

SERVICES, INCORPORATED and THE

WACKENHUT CORPORATION

Attomeys for Defsndants GHILLIE

SUITS.COM,INC, and TODD MUIRHEAD

-4-

CÄSE NO. 5:06-CV-6507tt¡\,

By:

By:

By:

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 87 Filed 03/05/08 Page 4 of 7
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

t0

t¡

t2

t3

r4

15

t6

t7

t8

t9

20

2l

22

¿J

24

25

26

27

Dated:

D¿ted:

Dated:

{NDKY Mîhil61 83\7 I 353\PLEAOINC\00096278,DOC|

Stipulnlior ond [Proposed] Ordor Amcndlng Schcdullng Ordcr

Respectfully submitted,

By:

Attorneys for Plaintiff,s .IEREMY JAMES

EHART, I(RISTY IiFIART and STEVEN

RYANMCCLANAI{AN

MANNING & Mnnoun, K¡.ss, [,ulnoD,

Rrrø¡npzLLP

Soun¿nn Bnurrrua¡r LLP

By:

Paul Stephan

Attorneys for Defenda¡ts GHILLIE

SUITS.COM,INC, and TODD MUIRHEAD

'-4-

CASE NO, 5:06.CV-ó507-JW

rs, Kelnnn & Your.¡c, LLP

for D efen d a¡rts WACKEMJUT

V/ACKBNHUT CORPORATION

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 87 Filed 03/05/08 Page 5 of 7
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

I

10

11

t2

I3

t4

15

l6

t7

18

19

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

Dated:#qA

TNDKY Moht\ú 183\7 1353\PLEADlNOfn0002Tt DOcl

sllp$lnthrn lnd [P]oF6!dl OÍhrÂmsillhg$chtdulhs oldcr

ARcHrnNonn¡s

Atbrnoys for Dofendant NE14¡ YORK HRESHIETÐ INCORPOR.ATED

-5-

cAsE No. 5:0ú.CV.6'0?.J$/

il

il

il

il

It

ll

ll

il

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 87 Filed 03/05/08 Page 6 of 7
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

l3

t4

15

T6

t7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Deadline to Disclose Expert Witnesses and serve resumes

and reports (63 days beþre the close of discovery)

October 13,2008

Last Date for Hearing Dispositive Motions

(60 days beþre Prelíminary Pretrial Conference)

November 13,2008

Close of All Discovery December 15,2008

Preliminary Pretrial Conference at 11 a.m. January 1212009

Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statements

@ue 10 days beþre conference)

January 2,2009

ÍPROPOSEDI ORDER

Pursuant to the Stipulation above, the following will be the Amended Scheduling Order in

this case:

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated:

THE HONORABLE JAMES WARE

I NDI(Y Mahr\6 I 83\7 l353\PLEADINc\00096278.DOC)

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Amending Scheduling Order -6-

CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

November 10, 2008 October 31, 2008 February 16, 2009 at 9 a.m.

This is the final Amendment of the Court's Scheduling 

Order. No further extension will be permitted.

March 4, 2008

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 87 Filed 03/05/08 Page 7 of 7