Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02033/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02033-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark F. Katz
Mediator
David Pak
Plaintiff
Joseph Pak
Plaintiff
Surplus Decor.com
Defendant
Vigo Industries, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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 -1- 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE 

Pak v. Vigo Industries, LLC, et al.; U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. of CA No. 14-CV-02033 MEJ 

GREGORY J. ROCKWELL, ESQ. (SBN 67305) 

grockwell@bjg.com

LAUREN O. MILLER, ESQ. (SBN 279448) 

lmiller@bjg.com 

BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE 

A Professional Corporation/File #27419 

555 12th Street, Suite 1800 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Telephone: (510) 834-4350 

Facsimile: (510) 839-1897 

Attorneys for Defendant 

VIGO INDUSTRIES, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID PAK, individual and doing business 

as EAGLE’s GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 

COMPANY, JOSEPH PAK, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

VIGO INDUSTRIES, LLC, SURPLUS 

DECOR.COM, DOES 1 TO 10, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No.: 14-CV-02033 MEJ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR 

EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE 

Complaint Filed: December 23, 2013 

Trial Date: August 3, 2015 

The undersigned, attorneys for the parties herein, hereby stipulate to the following facts 

and jointly request that the Court issue an order extending the deadline for expert witness 

disclosure in this matter from February 26, 2015 to March 27, 2015. 

The parties stipulate as follows: 

This is an action for water damage to a home owned by the plaintiffs in South Lake Tahoe, 

California. The plaintiffs claim that the home, which they purchased jointly for $150,000, 

sustained damage with a repair cost in excess of $100,000 due to a defective valve in a shower 

panel that was purchased from the defendant via the internet in late 2011. The damage to the 

home occurred in late 2012. 

Case 3:14-cv-02033-MEJ Document 24 Filed 02/23/15 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 -2- 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE 

Pak v. Vigo Industries, LLC, et al.; U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. of CA No. 14-CV-02033 MEJ 

The defendant had no knowledge of plaintiff’s claims until being served with the complaint 

in this action in April 2014. The action was originally filed in the San Mateo Superior Court and 

removed to this Court in May 2014. 

Plaintiff David Pak is the primary witness with knowledge of the circumstances giving rise 

to claimed damages. His deposition in this matter was taken on November 5, 2014, at which time 

Mr. Pak produced voluminous documents and photographs for the first time. 

In its initial case management scheduling order, issued on July 24, 2014, this Court 

scheduled expert witness disclosures for December 19, 2014. On December 17, 2014, the Court 

granted the parties’ first request to extend the deadline for expert witness disclosures until 

February 26, 2015 to allow defendant’s expert to inspect the subject valve. 

On January 27, 2015, the parties took part in mediation, through the Court’s mediation 

program, with mediator Mark F. Katz. The case did not resolve at mediation. 

Immediately following mediation, defendant began efforts to retain an appropriate general 

contractor expert to evaluate the extent of alleged damage and cost of repair, but its expert has yet 

to prepare a written report compliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(b) because its 

expert has not had the opportunity to perform an inspection of the home. Specifically, Mr. Pak 

recently underwent surgery and cannot make the home available for a site inspection until 

March 5, 2015. 

Counsel for the defendant and its expert need additional time to investigate the claimed 

damages, so that the defendant’s insurer can adequately make a reasoned decision about the 

appropriate settlement value of the case prior to the expert witness disclosure deadline. 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

\\ 

Case 3:14-cv-02033-MEJ Document 24 Filed 02/23/15 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 -3- 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE 

Pak v. Vigo Industries, LLC, et al.; U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. of CA No. 14-CV-02033 MEJ 

Wherefore, the parties jointly request that the Court issue an order extending the deadline 

for expert witness disclosure to March 27, 2015. Such an extension will not affect the timing of 

the trial date or the deadline for filing dispositive motions. 

DATED: February 20, 2015 

BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE 

A Professional Corporation 

By: /s/ Lauren O. Miller LAUREN O. MILLER, ESQ. 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DATED: 2/20/2015 

ALBERT L. BOASBERG, ESQ. 

By: /s/ Albert L. Boasberg ALBERT L. BOASBERG, ESQ. 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

GOOD CAUSE appearing therefor, and the parties having so stipulated, the deadline for 

expert witness disclosure is hereby extended to March 27, 2015 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: 

 _______________________________ 

Hon. Maria-Elena James 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

 

February 23, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-02033-MEJ Document 24 Filed 02/23/15 Page 3 of 3