Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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] STIPULATION AND ORDER RE

SCHEDULING ORDER 

LYNNE C. HERMLE (STATE BAR NO. 99779) 

JOSEPH C. LIBURT (STATE BAR NO. 155507) 

STEVE CHARIYASATIT (STATE BAR NO. 252028) 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

1000 Marsh Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Telephone: 650-614-7400 

Facsimile: 650-614-7401 

NORMAN C. HILE (STATE BAR NO. 57299) 

JULIE A. TOTTEN (STATE BAR NO. 166470) 

DAVID A. PRAHL (STATE BAR NO. 233583) 

ANDREA L. BROWN (STATE BAR NO. 237629) 

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 

Telephone: (916) 447-9200 

Facsimile: (916) 329-4900 

Attorneys for Defendant 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

(erroneously sued as “PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP”) 

WILLIAM A. KERSHAW (STATE BAR NO. 0574876) 

LYLE W. COOK (STATE BAR NO. 148914) 

STUART C. TALLEY (STATE BAR NO. 180374) 

KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP 

401 Watt Avenue 

Sacramento, CA 95864 

Telephone: (916) 448-9800 

Facsimile: (916) 669-4499 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

JASON CAMPBELL and SARAH SOBEK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JASON CAMPBELL and SARAH SOBEK, 

individually, and on behalf of all other 

similarly situated current and former 

employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, a 

Limited Liability Partnership; and DOES 1-

100, inclusive, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 06-CV-02376-LKK-GGH 

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 204 Filed 07/02/08 Page 1 of 4
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] STIPULATION AND ORDER RE

SCHEDULING ORDER 

This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Jason Campbell and Sarah Sobek 

("Plaintiffs") on behalf of various California employees of Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers 

LLP ("PwC") who allege they were misclassified as exempt employees under California law. On 

October 24, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification that was heard on February 25, 

2008. On March 25, 2008, the Court entered an order certifying a class consisting of nonlicensed Associates working in the Attest division of PwC's Assurance line of service in 

California during the period from October 27, 2002 to the present. As part of the order, the Court 

certified its decision for interlocutory appeal. 

Thereafter, Plaintiffs and PwC both filed petitions with the Court of Appeals seeking 

permission to file an appeal. Following the filing of these petitions, PwC sought an order from 

the Court staying the instant litigation. During the time period that the motion to stay and appeal 

were pending, no discovery occurred in the litigation. 

On May 16, 2008, the appellate court denied both of the petitions. On June 5, 2008, this 

Court denied PwC's request for a stay and ordered that notice be sent to the class. Under the 

Court’s order, the class will not receive notice until approximately July 25, 2008. 

This case is currently set for trial on March 3, 2009. The parties presently disagree as to 

whether there will be sufficient time to prepare the case for trial by that date. PwC believes that it 

is unlikely that the parties will be able to prepare the case for trial by March 3, 2009 given that 

discovery is ongoing and the parties anticipate preparing and submitting further dispositive 

motions to the Court. In addition, PwC intends to file a motion to consolidate this action with 

two related class actions presently pending before this Court: (1) Le v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, 

LLP, Case No. 2:08-cv-00997-LKK-EFB; and (2) Kress et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 

Case No. 2:08-cv-00965-LKK-GGH. Given these circumstances, PwC believes that the trial date 

should be extended, and respectfully requests that the Court defer determining the length of any 

extension of the trial date until the hearing on PwC's consolidation motion, which will be filed 

shortly. 

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, believe that there will be sufficient time to prepare the case 

for trial by March 3, 2009 and would like to maintain this trial date. However, plaintiffs recognize 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 204 Filed 07/02/08 Page 2 of 4
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 

- 2 - 

[PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND ORDER RE

SCHEDULING ORDER 

that the Court’s original Pretrial Order provides that any adjustment of the court’s deadlines must 

be accompanied by an adjustment of the trial date. 

Notwithstanding the parties' disagreement as to whether there will be sufficient time to 

prepare the case for trial by March 3, 2009, the parties agree that it is unlikely that discovery and 

other matters can be completed within currently-set deadlines. The parties accordingly request 

that the currently-set schedule be adjusted as set forth below in order to allow for the completion 

of discovery. The parties believe there is good cause for this adjustment to the schedule in light 

of the delays caused by the interlocutory appeals and the process of sending notice to the class. 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiffs and PwC, by 

and through their respective undersigned counsel, that the following schedule be adopted by the 

Court: 

1. All non-expert discovery shall be completed on or before October 22, 2008. In 

accordance with the Court's January 24, 2007 Scheduling Order, the word "completed" means 

that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any 

disputes relative to discovery have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where 

discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. Motions to compel discovery shall 

be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court so 

that such motions will be heard not later than September 22, 2008. 

2. All expert designations shall be made by October 22, 2008, accompanied by a 

written report as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Depositions of such 

experts shall occur within 30 days of designation. If an expert is retained solely to contradict or 

rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2(B), such 

expert disclosures shall be made within 30 days after the other party’s disclosure, accompanied by 

a written report as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Depositions of such experts shall occur within 

30 days of designation. The parties must supplement these disclosures when required under 

Rule 26(e). 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 204 Filed 07/02/08 Page 3 of 4
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 

- 3 - 

[PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND ORDER RE

SCHEDULING ORDER 

3. All law and motion shall be conducted so as to be completed by November 24, 

2008. In accordance with the Court's January 24, 2007 Scheduling Order, the word "completed" 

means that all law and motion matters must be heard by this date. 

4. A mid-litigation statement shall be filed by no later than October 8, 2008. 

5. The Final Pretrial Conference shall take place at 3:30 on January 12, 2009. With 

the exception of this revised schedule, all other orders in the Court’s January 24, 2007 Scheduling 

Order shall remain in full force and effect. 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED. 

Dated: June 30, 2008 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 

/s/

Norman C. Hile 

Attorneys for Defendant 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

Dated: June 30, 2008 KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP 

/s/

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Jason Campbell and Sarah Sobek 

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 2, 2008 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 204 Filed 07/02/08 Page 4 of 4