Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01735/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01735-21/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Plaintiff
David Averill
Defendant
Edward P. Conti
Defendant
Matthew Hillyard
Defendant
Integral Consulting, Inc.
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

4827-5608-0673.1CBM-SF\SF646054-1 Case No. CV 12-01735 SC (NC)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

CARROLL, BURDICK &

MCDONOUGH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Matthew F. Miller, Bar No. 172661

mmiller@cbmlaw.com

Robert J. Nolan, Bar No. 235738

rnolan@cbmlaw.com

Wallace E. Smith, Bar No. 112091

wallaces@cbmlaw.com

CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP

Attorneys at Law

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: 415.989.5900

Facsimile: 415.989.0932

Attorneys for Plaintiff AMEC Environment &

Infrastructure, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

AMEC ENVIRONMENT &

INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEGRAL CONSULTING, INC.,

EDWARD P. CONTI, an individual,

MATTHEW HILLYARD, an individual, and

DAVID AVERILL, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No. CV 12-01735 SC (NC)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2014, this Court entered an Order granting AMEC’s Motion for

Integral to run AMEC search terms and ordered Integral to produce said documents on November

12, 2014 (Dkt. 162) (“October 9 Order”);

WHEREAS, on October 23, 2014, Integral filed a Motion for Relief from Nondispositive

Pretrial Order objecting in part to the collection, processing, and production of eleven (11)

additional custodians and the application of certain search parameters and date restrictions, as

ordered by the Court;

WHEREAS, on November 19, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying Integral’s Motion

for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order (“Order”) in which it noted, “Because the Court did

Case3:12-cv-01735-SC Document207 Filed12/23/14 Page1 of 4

IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED

Case 3:12-cv-01735-SC Document 208 Filed 01/09/15 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

4827-5608-0673.1CBM-SF\SF646054-1 -2- Case No. CV 12-01735 SC (NC)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

CARROLL, BURDICK &

MCDONOUGH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

not issue an order denying the motion or setting a briefing schedule, the motion should have been

deemed denied as of November 6, 2014” (Order 4:14-15);

WHEREAS, Integral represents that it is working diligently to collect and process the

documents from eleven (11) additional custodians located across the United States and intends to

produce documents pursuant to the October 9 Order in January 2015;

WHEREAS, on December 3, 2014, the Court granted an Order permitting Plaintiff AMEC

Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to add

David Averill as an individual defendant;

WHEREAS, on December 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a FAC and the response of the newly

added defendant David Averill, whose response is not yet due;

WHEREAS, AMEC contends it needs to be able to review documents that are to be

produced by Integral so that AMEC may effectively prepare for depositions of AMEC and Integral

personnel;

WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014 AMEC objected to Integral’s Notice of 30(b)(6)

Deposition of AMEC, which Integral had noticed for December 22, 2014;

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2014, the parties cooperated with one another and agreed to

reschedule the 30(b)(6) depositions of AMEC to a new date and to attempt to coordinate mutually

available dates for counsel and witnesses as to certain topics while other topics remain under

discussion;

WHEREAS, at the hearing of Defendant Conti’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to

Interrogatories, on December 22, 2014, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins ordered AMEC to

provide supplemental responses to Interrogatories 8, 9 and 10 by January 23, 2014, the current

date for the close of discovery;

WHEREAS, at the December 22 hearing, Judge Cousins noted that the supplemental

responses were due on January 23 because he could not alter deadlines set by Judge Conti, but he

would consider an extension of the deadline for AMEC to provide supplemental responses if the

trial and discovery deadline were continued;

Case 3:12-cv-01735-SC Document 208 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 4 Case3:12-cv-01735-SC Document207 Filed12/23/14 Page2 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

4827-5608-0673.1CBM-SF\SF646054-1 -3- Case No. CV 12-01735 SC (NC)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

CARROLL, BURDICK &

MCDONOUGH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

WHEREAS, the parties, in consultation with each other, have agreed to continue the trial

date, provided the Court is in agreement and to have all pre-trial dates, including the dates for

completion of discovery, the taking of depositions, expert disclosures, and the hearing of

dispositive motions continued for the same duration as the trial date is continued;

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a continuance of the trial date to July 6, 2015;

WHEREAS, the parties have previously requested, and the Court granted a continuance of

the initial trial date of February 9, 2015 and all pre-trial deadlines in this case because of the

unavailability of plaintiff’s damages expert;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto

through their respective attorneys of record as follows:

The parties stipulate to continue the trial date and have the trial of this matter commence

July 6, 2015;

The parties further stipulate to have all pre-trial dates, including the dates for filing and

hearing of dispositive motions, discovery, depositions, and expert disclosures to dates set by the

Court in accordance with the new trial date.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: December 23, 2014 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP

By /s/ Wallace E. Smith

Wallace E. Smith

Attorneys for Plaintiff AMEC Environment &

Infrastructure, Inc.

Dated: December 23, 2014 LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

By /s/ Leo A. Bautista

Leo A. Bautista

Attorneys for Defendant Integral Consulting, Inc.

Case 3:12-cv-01735-SC Document 208 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 4 Case3:12-cv-01735-SC Document207 Filed12/23/14 Page3 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

4827-5608-0673.1CBM-SF\SF646054-1 -4- Case No. CV 12-01735 SC (NC)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

CARROLL, BURDICK &

MCDONOUGH LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Dated: December 23, 2014 BURNHAM BROWN

By /s/ Brendan Brownfield

Brendan Brownfield

Attorneys for Defendants Edward P. Conti and

Matthew Hillyard

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that trial in this matter is

hereby continued from April 27, 2015 to _____________. All discovery shall be completed and

all depositions taken by ____________. The hearing date for dispositive motions, to be noticed in

accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2 is ______________. A pre-trial conference shall be held

before the Court on ___________.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December ___, 2014

HONORABLE SAMUEL CONTI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case3:12-cv-01735-SC Document207 Filed12/23/14 Page4 of 4

August 17, 2015

May 29, 2015

June 26, 2015

August 14, 2015.

January 9, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:12-cv-01735-SC Document 208 Filed 01/09/15 Page 4 of 4