Joint Stipulation To Amend Case Schedule  🔗 **Source:** [Joint Stipulation To Amend Case Schedule](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/377751152) > [!note]+ Document Notes > > tags: [#legal, #court, #document_review, #obsidian] > source: "Uploaded PDF/Article" > date: 2025-10-20 > ---------------- > > # 🧾 Joint Stipulation to Amend Case Schedule (w/ Declaration & [Proposed] Order) > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 📝 1. Overview * Parties jointly seek to amend the case schedule without moving the 2027 trial date. [p.1–2], [Dkt. No. 119] * Filing set: (1) Joint Stipulation; (2) Declaration of Joseph R. Rose; (3) [Proposed] Order. [p.1], [p.1], [p.1] * Context: Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on 2025-10-03 and a Notice of Errata on 2025-10-07; Defendants moved to dismiss on 2025-10-17 and plan to answer and counterclaim the week of 2025-10-20. [Dkt. Nos. 174, 180], [p.2–3] * Strategic note: Parties propose shortened intervals between milestone events while adding discovery time; they also adopt interim production and deposition commitments. [p.3–5] ## 🔍 2. Detailed Analysis ### 🧪 2.1 Evidence Authenticity & Completeness * Stipulation cites Civil L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12; Rule 1 invoked for “just, speedy, and efficient” resolution. [p.1], [p.4] * Attorney attestation under Civil Local Rule 5-1 confirms concurrence of all signatories. [p.6–7] * Declaration states personal knowledge basis; executed 2025-10-19 in San Francisco, CA. [p.2], [p.4] * Exhibits: None attached; no hashes/metadata provided; no archival links. Not specified. [would appear in exhibits or a proof of service] * [Proposed] Order mirrors the schedule grid; signature line for Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín. [p.1–3] ### ⚖️ 2.2 Legal Citations & Precedents * Authorities cited: Civil L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12 (stipulations and time adjustments). [p.1] * Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 cited for good-cause/economy rationale. [p.4] * No case law precedents cited (e.g., M.O.R.E.; Khoja). Not specified. [would appear in argument section] ### 🧠 2.3 Argument Structure & Logical Flow * Premise: Complex case with 18 causes of action and active discovery disputes. [p.2–3] * Evidence: ~79,000 documents produced; seven joint discovery letters; Oct. 9, 2025 conference with Magistrate Judge Ryu. [p.2–3] * Rule hook: Local Rules and Rule 1 justify modest extension. [p.1], [p.4] * Conclusion: Extend fact discovery to 2026-03-12; preserve 2027-02-22 trial. [p.3–5] * Gaps: Counterclaims described as “unspecified”; hearing date “to be noticed.” [p.2–3], [p.5] * Fallacies: None apparent; language avoids overreach; cooperative framing. [p.3–4] ### 🗂️ 2.4 Procedural Compliance & Formatting * Caption lists N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division; correct case number used across stipulation and declaration: 3:24-cv-06917-AMO. [p.1] * [Proposed] Order header shows “CASE NO. 3:25-CV-01892-AMO” in running footer contrary to caption “3:24-cv-06917-AMO.” [p.1–3] * Pagination, attorney blocks, signatures present; no proof of service page included. Not specified. [would appear after signature blocks] ### 🧭 2.5 DARVO & Judicial Considerations * DARVO indicators: None; stipulation reflects cooperation and shared scheduling burdens. [p.2–4] * Chain of custody/digital metadata: Not discussed; no ESI hash values or preservation references. Not specified. [would appear in ESI protocol] ## 🧮 3. Evaluation Expectations & Comparative Feedback * Judicial perspective: Good cause supported by discovery volume, disputes, and ongoing depositions. [p.2–3] * Opposing critique: “Unspecified counterclaims” could be viewed as vague justification. [p.2–3] * Answers—improvement prompts: * Evidence authenticity analysis can add production logs and custodial indexes. Not specified. [would be appended] * Address DARVO by maintaining neutral “joint necessity” language. [p.2–4] * Add supportive precedents on schedule modifications under L.R. 6-2. Not specified. [would appear in a brief] ## 🔧 4. Recommendations * Cure the case-number inconsistency in the [Proposed] Order before submission. [p.1–3] * Add specificity on counterclaims timing/subjects to justify discovery extension. [p.2–3] * Include an ESI milestone checklist and confirmation of preservation status. Not specified. [would appear in joint statement] * Notice hearing dates promptly once motions are filed to avoid congestion. [p.5] ## 🎯 5. Final Thoughts * The stipulation is narrowly tailored and cooperative; the record shows diligence. [p.2–4] * Primary risk is clerical (case number) and lack of detail on counterclaims. [p.1–3], [p.2–3] ## 📎 6. Supplemental Materials & Appendices * Schedule comparison table (below). [p.4–5]; [p.2–4] ## 🧩 7. Core Legal Extracts (Master Schema) ### 🧷 7.1 Document Metadata * Title: “JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE.” [p.1] * Related filings: “DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. ROSE…”; “[PROPOSED] ORDER TO AMEND CASE SCHEDULE.” [p.1], [p.1] * Author/filing party: Parties jointly; counsel listed for WPE and Defendants. [p.1–2] * Date: Filed 2025-10-19. [p.1], [p.1], [p.1] * Jurisdiction/venue: N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division. [p.1] * Docket/ECF: Case No. 3:24-cv-06917-AMO; ECF 192 (stipulation), 192-1 (declaration), 192-2 (proposed order). [p.1] * Procedural posture: Active discovery; SAC filed; MTD pending; schedule amendment requested. [p.2–3] * Confidentiality status: Not specified. [would appear in sealing motion or caption] ### 👥 7.2 Parties & Roles * Plaintiff: WPEngine, Inc. (“WPE”). [caption] * Defendants: Automattic Inc.; Matthew Charles Mullenweg. [caption] * Counsel for Plaintiff: Quinn Emanuel (multiple offices; named attorneys). [p.2] * Counsel for Defendants: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; named partners. [p.1] * Magistrate overseeing discovery disputes: Judge Ryu (conference on 2025-10-09). [p.2–3] ### 📌 7.3 Claims, Defenses, Relief * Substantive claims count: 18 causes of action (WPE). [p.2] * Defenses/counterclaims: Defendants intend to file unspecified counterclaims. [p.2–3] * Requested relief in this filing: Scheduling modification only; no merits relief. [p.3–5] ### 🧾 7.4 Key Facts & Evidence * Document production: “more than 79,000 documents.” [p.2] * Discovery dispute history: “seven joint discovery letters;” Oct. 9 conference resolved some disputes. [p.2–3] * Interim commitments: substantial completion by 2025-12-10; five depositions per side in 2025; production one week pre-deposition; continued meet-and-confer. [p.3–4] * Scheduling table with proposed dates (see table). [p.4–5] * Quotations (≤10 words): “good cause exists for the requested extension.” [p.4] ### 📚 7.5 Issues, Standards, Authorities * Issues: Whether to extend deadlines while preserving trial date. [p.3–5] * Standards: Civil L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2, 7-12; Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. [p.1], [p.4] * Controlling authority type: Local rules govern stipulations; no competing authority cited. [p.1] ### 🔎 7.6 Analysis Snapshot * Premise → inference → conclusion: * High discovery load + active disputes → more time required. [p.2–3] * Joint commitments → efficiency, reduced court intervention. [p.3–4] * Preserve trial date → shortened intervals elsewhere. [p.3–5] * Gaps: Counterclaims unspecified; hearing timing unresolved. [p.2–3], [p.5] ### 🗣️ 7.7 Rhetoric, Tone, Bias * Tone: Cooperative, procedural, efficiency-focused. [p.2–4] * Rhetorical devices: Rule-1 framing; “good cause” assertion; diligence claims. [p.2–4] * Selective sourcing risk: No exhibits or detailed ESI metrics. Not specified. [would appear via exhibits] ### 🚩 7.8 Red Flags & Ambiguities * Case-number inconsistency in [Proposed] Order footer (“3:25-cv-01892-AMO”). [p.1–3] * “Unspecified counterclaims” cited to justify time. [p.2–3] * Time zone for hearings not stated. Not specified. [would appear in notice] ### 🗓️ 7.9 Deadlines & Obligations * Fact discovery close: 2026-03-12 (from 2025-11-20). [p.4–5] * Interim discovery commitments (Dec. 10 substantial completion; depositions; pre-deposition production). [p.3–4] * Hearing on SJ/Daubert: “To be noticed… based on the Court’s availability.” [p.5] * Trial date unchanged: 2027-02-22 at 8:30 a.m. [p.5] * Time zone: Not specified. [would appear in a hearing notice] ### 🧱 7.10 Practical Implications * Discovery scope remains broad; interim commitments aim to reduce disputes. [p.3–4] * No confidentiality modifications; no protective-order discussion here. Not specified. [would appear in separate motion] * Potential counterclaims may expand discovery topics. [p.2–3] ### 🕰️ 7.11 Timeline (Mini) * Key events: SAC filing; Errata; MTD filing; Oct. 9 discovery conference; proposed schedule milestones. [p.2–5] ```mermaid timeline title Procedural Timeline (local court time) section Pleadings 2025-10-03 : Second Amended Complaint filed [Dkt. No. 174] 2025-10-07 : Notice of Errata re SAC [Dkt. No. 180] 2025-10-17 : Motion to Dismiss SAC filed section Discovery 2025-10-09 : Discovery conference before Magistrate Judge Ryu 2025-12-10 : Substantial completion for party document productions 2026-03-12 : Fact discovery cutoff (proposed) section Experts & Motions 2026-04-23 : Initial expert disclosures (proposed) 2026-05-28 : Rebuttal expert disclosures (proposed) 2026-06-25 : Close of expert discovery (proposed) 2026-07-16 : MSJ filing deadline (moving party) (proposed) 2026-08-13 : Cross-MSJ & oppositions; Daubert filings (proposed) 2026-09-03 : Combined opposition/reply; Daubert oppositions (proposed) 2026-09-17 : Cross-reply; Daubert replies (proposed) section Pretrial & Trial 2026-12-18 : Joint pretrial conference statement (proposed) 2027-01-28 : Pretrial conference at 11:00 a.m. 2027-02-22 : Jury trial (10 days) at 8:30 a.m. ``` ### 🔗 7.12 Sources & Cross-Refs * Joint Stipulation (ECF 192). [p.1–7] * Rose Declaration (ECF 192-1). [p.1–4] * [Proposed] Order (ECF 192-2). [p.1–3] ### ❓ 7.13 Open Questions & Further Research * What are the subjects and counts of the intended counterclaims? [p.2–3] * Are there agreed ESI protocols, custodians, and collection dates beyond Aug. 15, 2025? [p.3] * Will parties stipulate to hearing dates to avoid calendar compression? [p.5] ### ✅ 7.14 Next Actions (Checklist) * Prepare and file corrected [Proposed] Order with accurate case number (Defendants’ counsel; before submission). [p.1–3] * Serve notice for SJ/Daubert hearing once motions are filed (moving party; per local availability). [p.5] * Complete substantial production by 2025-12-10 with custodian scope defined (both sides). [p.3–4] * Calendar five depositions per side before 2025-12-31; ensure one-week pre-deposition production (both sides). [p.3–4] ### 🏷️ 7.15 Glossary * “WPE” / “WPEngine, Inc.” — Plaintiff. [caption] * “Defendants” — Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg. [caption] * “SAC” — Second Amended Complaint. [p.2] * “MSJ” — Motion for Summary Judgment. [p.4–5] * “Daubert motions” — Expert admissibility motions. [p.4–5] ## 🔒 8. Risk & Procedural Overlays ### ⚠️ 8.1 Sanctions & Rule 11 Risk * Minimal; factual assertions tie to discovery metrics and docket history. [p.2–3] ### 🧭 8.2 Choice of Law & Forum Selection * Federal procedural law and N.D. Cal. Local Rules apply. [caption], [p.1] ### 💾 8.3 ESI Protocol & Spoliation * Substantial completion by 2025-12-10; scope tied to collections through 2025-08-15. [p.3] * No preservation letters or spoliation claims discussed. Not specified. [would appear in separate filings] ### 🧳 8.4 Privilege & Work-Product * No privilege log or clawback terms mentioned. Not specified. [would appear in protective order] ### 🛡️ 8.5 Protective Orders & Confidentiality * No sealing or confidentiality designations discussed. Not specified. [would appear via motion to seal] ### 💸 8.6 Damages Math Check * Not applicable. ### 👥 8.7 Class/Collective Action Posture * Not applicable. ### 🤝 8.8 ADR/Settlement Posture * Not specified. [would appear in CMC statements or ADR referrals] ### ♿ 8.9 Accessibility & Public-Facing Compliance * Text-based PDFs; attorney blocks readable; no alt-text obligations indicated. [p.1–7], [p.1–4], [p.1–3] ## 🧯 Quality Guardrails (Always Apply) * No facts beyond the filings included. [all] * Each material statement cites the filings; gaps marked “Not specified.” [all] * Conflict flagged: case number mismatch in [Proposed] Order. [p.1–3] ### Schedule Comparison (Current vs. Proposed) | Event | Current Operative Deadline | Proposed Modified Deadline | | --------------------------------------------- | -------------------------: | --------------------------------------: | | Close of fact discovery | 2025-11-20 | 2026-03-12 | | Initial expert disclosures/reports | 2026-01-15 | 2026-04-23 | | Rebuttal expert disclosures/reports | 2026-02-26 | 2026-05-28 | | Close of expert discovery | 2026-03-19 | 2026-06-25 | | MSJ filing (moving party; 25 pages) | 2026-04-09 | 2026-07-16 | | Cross-MSJ + opposition (25 pages) | 2026-05-14 | 2026-08-13 | | Daubert motions (filed with cross/opposition) | 2026-05-14 | 2026-08-13 | | Combined opposition & reply (15 pages) | 2026-06-11 | 2026-09-03 | | Oppositions to Daubert | 2026-06-11 | 2026-09-03 | | Cross-reply (15 pages) | 2026-07-02 | 2026-09-17 | | Daubert replies | 2026-07-02 | 2026-09-17 | | Hearing on SJ/Daubert | To be noticed | To be noticed (per Court availability) | | Joint pretrial statement | 2027-01-04 | 2026-12-18 | | Pretrial conference | 2027-01-28 at 11:00 a.m. | 2027-01-28 at 11:00 a.m. | | Jury trial (10 days) | 2027-02-22 at 8:30 a.m. | 2027-02-22 at 8:30 a.m. | --- <!-- deep-read:sections end --> [[3. Resources/Readwise/Full Document Contents/Articles/Joint Stipulation To Amend Case Schedule|Full Document Contents]] ## Highlights - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k8277aw701mf8vz6ra6pjg84))