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 S N D TIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE HEARING DATE 1

Michelle L. Roberts - CA STATE BAR NO. 239092

Cassie Springer-Sullivan - CA STATE BAR NO. 221506

SPRINGER-SULLIVAN & ROBERTS LLP

410 - 12th Street, Suite 325

Oakland, CA 94607

Telephone: (510) 992-6130

Facsimile: (510) 280-7564

E-mail: css@ssrlawgroup.com

mlr@ssrlawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

REBECCA A. HULL Bar No. 99802

RYAN L. HARRISON Bar No. 230584

rebecca.hull@sdma.com

ryan.harrison@sdma.com

One Market Plaza

Steuart Tower, 8 Floor th

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 781-7900

Facsimile: (415) 781-2635

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO

HANNA ZEWDU,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITIGROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY

PLAN,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 08-05770 MMC

SECOND STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE HEARING

DATE OF PLAINTIFF’S RULE 52

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Hanna Zewdu and Defendant Citigroup Long Term Disability Plan (collectively referred

to as the “Parties”) through their respective counsel stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, on December 21, 2009, pursuant to the Parties’s stipulation, the Court reset the

hearing date for the Parties’s Rule 52 Motion and Cross-Motion for Judgment for April 30, 2010 (Docket

Entry #43);

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 62 Filed 02/16/10 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 S N D TIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE HEARING DATE 2

WHEREAS, on November 4, 2009, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Compel, which was assigned

to Judge Maria-Elena James (Docket Entry #24);

WHEREAS, on November 9, 2009, Judge James denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel without

prejudice in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order Re Discovery (Docket Entry #32);

WHEREAS, on December 18, 2009, the Parties filed Joint Letters to Judge James regarding the

Parties’s discovery dispute;

WHEREAS, the discovery dispute is still pending and the Parties await Judge James’s ruling on

the Joint Letters;

WHEREAS, the Parties do not believe that the pending discovery dispute will be resolved prior

to February 26, 2010, when Plaintiff must file her Rule 52 Motion for Judgment, and seek to extend

certain case deadlines to permit sufficient time for the resolution of the discovery issues;

WHEREAS, the Parties have sought two extensions of time in this matter, including the ADR

deadline and the hearing date for the Parties’s Rule 52 Motion and Cross-Motion for Judgment;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:

The case deadlines are now as follows:

Plaintiff’s Rule 52 Motion for Judgment: May 21, 2010

Defendant’s Opposition/Cross-motion: June 4, 2010

Plaintiff’s Reply/Opposition: June 18, 2010

Defendant’s Reply: July 2, 2010

Hearing: July 16, 2010

Dated: February 12, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

SPRINGER-SULLIVAN & ROBERTS LLP

By: /s/

 Michelle L. Roberts

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: February 12, 2010 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

By: /s/

Rebecca Hull

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 62 Filed 02/16/10 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

2 S N D TIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE HEARING DATE 3

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

The case deadlines are now as follows:

Plaintiff’s Rule 52 Motion for Judgment: May 21, 2010

Defendant’s Opposition/Cross-motion: June 4, 2010

Plaintiff’s Reply/Opposition: June 18, 2010

Defendant’s Reply: July 2, 2010

Hearing: July 16, 2010

Dated: ____________ ____________________________________

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

U.S. District Court Judge

July 23, 2010

February 16, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 62 Filed 02/16/10 Page 3 of 3