Preview
San Diego, CA 92101
Gordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
w
wn
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
BRIAN M. LEDGER (SBN: 156942) Superior Court of Caiffornia,
Email: bledger@gordonrees.com oeanty C8 an renciec’
GORDON & REES LLP 11/20/2015
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 Clerk of the Court
San Diego, CA 92101 = Desay care
Telephone: (619) 696-6700
Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
Attorneys for Defendants
NEWEGG, INC., MAGNELL ASSOCIATE, INC. and ROSEWILL, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
WHITNEY R. LEEMAN, PH.D., CASE NO. CGC-14-542330
DECLARATION OF BRIAN
LEDGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR FIRST, 120-DAY
CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND
RELATED DATES
Plaintiff,
vs.
NEWEGG INC.; MAGNELL ASSOCIATE,
INC.; ROSEWILL, INC., and DOES 1-150,
FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH:
1. Notice of Motion and Motion
2. Memorandum of Points and
Authorities
3. [Proposed] Order
Defendant.
Date: December 10, 2015
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept: 206
eee
I, Brian Ledger, declare:
1. Tam attorney licensed to practice in the State of California. I am a partner of
Gordon & Rees LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants NEWEGG, INC., MAGNELL
ASSOCIATE, INC. and ROSEWILL, INC. (collectively, “Defendants”). This declaration is
made in support of Defendants’ motion for a 120-day continuance of the trial and trial-related
deadlines in this action. Unless otherwise stated, I am familiar with the matters stated in this
declaration and if called upon to do so, would competently testify thereto.
-l-
DECLARATION OF BRIAN LEDGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FIRST, 120-DAY
CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATESSan Diego, CA 92101
Gordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
w
wn
2. Plaintiff has sued Defendants under Proposition 65, alleging that defendants have
failed to adequately warn consumers of the alleged presence of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(“DEHP”) in vinyl/PVC cords and other components of headsets sold by Defendants in
California.
3. The trial in this case is currently scheduled for January 19, 2016. I will be
appearing as trial counsel for Defendants.
4. Tam also lead trial counsel in a matter that has a trial date of January 11, 2016, in
the matter of Andreas Vellios vs. UMSE, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
BC434872, Judge Terry Green, presiding. That trial date cannot be moved, as the case is on the
brink of exceeding the five-year trial deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.
The trial is estimated to last 20-25 court days. In addition, I am lead trial counsel in a matter
pending in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Louis Desorbo v.
United States Steel Corporation, et al., Case No. 03450, with a trial date of February 1, 2016.
Further, I am lead trial counsel in a matter pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles vy. PCC Technical
Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-01626 FMO (CWx), with a trial date of February 9, 2016.
That trial is of a CERCLA action and is estimated to last 3-4 trial weeks, has already been
continued twice, and the court indicated at a recent hearing that there would be no further
continuances.
5. In addition to the conflict in trial dates in the foregoing matters, Defendants need
additional time in which to complete fact discovery and pursue settlement. Since Defendants
appeared in this action, counsel for Plaintiff and I have been engaged in efforts to resolve this
case informally, and I believe continued efforts in that regard may prove successful.
6. In the interest of efficiency, Defendants’ resources have been focused on
settlement rather than protracted litigation. For that reason, Defendants have necessary fact
discovery left to complete. In order to adequately prepare Defendants’ defense, and to prepare
experts for expert discovery, Defendants need additional time in which to complete fact
discovery, including written discovery (which was recently served on Plaintiff).
-2-
DECLARATION OF BRIAN LEDGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FIRST, 120-DAY
CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATESSan Diego, CA 92101
Gordon & Rees LLP
101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
L101858/25834626y.1
7. I believe 120 days will provide sufficient time in which to complete remaining
fact discovery, which is necessary both to prepare Defendants’ expert witness, and to adequately
complete trial preparations. Therefore, Defendants are requesting a 120-day continuance of the
trial and all trial-related deadlines (including all discovery cutoffs and the expert exchange
deadline).
8. T have been in communication with counsel for Plaintiff and had been under the
impression we would be stipulating to a trial continuance, while settlement discussions continue.
However, I recently learned that Plaintiff's counsel will not stipulate, necessitating this ex parte
application. This motion is being filed as soon as practicable after I learned Plaintiffs counsel’s
position regarding the stipulation.
9. This is the first time any party has requested a continuance of the trial in this
action. No parties will be prejudiced by a continuance.
10. Pursuant to Court order shortening time, the notice period and briefing schedule
on this notice of motion and motion is shortened. (See Order Shortening Time, a true and
correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.)
11. Defendants twice previously applied ex parte to continue the trial and trial-related
dates. On both occasions, Plaintiffs counsel advised that they did not oppose the request for
120-day continuance of the trial and trial-related dates.
T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 20th day of November, 2015, in San Diego, California.
Brian Ledget=” =
3-
DECLARATION OF BRIAN LEDGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FIRST, 120-DAY
CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATESEXHIBIT AENDORSED
San Francisco Couniy Superior Court
NOV: 20 2095
CL
: BY: oy ETHE COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA \ z .
eputy Clerk
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE
Case No.: C GC -[d- 542320
~ \Watroe B - foomenr , WA
J Plaintifi(s) ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE:
MOTION TO aa Wal)
vs.
\(ay weed Ta Atocuall tere Ja Date: Pde ourds told, UE
vv “Shrendeatts) Time: 9:30 A.M.
Dept.: 206
Good cause appearing, it is the order of this court that the time for service of the motion
A lah wue Tad! is shortened.
All moving papers, including an endorsed-filed copy of the ex-parte application and this
Order Shortening Time, shall be filed with the Court and served personally or by facsimile on all
opposing counsel, or parties without counsel, no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date of this Order.
All opposing papeis shail be filed and served personally or by facsimile no later than
fl Du on Mabe, Mitiither 4 LUE.
All reply papers shall be waived.
Courtesy Copies of all papers must be lodged with Dept. 206 within one hour of filing.
nov 2.02015 JOHN K. STEWART
DATE:
Judge of the-Superior Court ot
JOHN kK. STEWART
Preview
San Diego, CA 92101 Gordon & Rees LLP 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 w wn ELECTRONICALLY FILED BRIAN M. LEDGER (SBN: 156942) Superior Court of Caiffornia, Email: bledger@gordonrees.com oeanty C8 an renciec’ GORDON & REES LLP 11/20/2015 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 Clerk of the Court San Diego, CA 92101 = Desay care Telephone: (619) 696-6700 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 Attorneys for Defendants NEWEGG, INC., MAGNELL ASSOCIATE, INC. and ROSEWILL, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO WHITNEY R. LEEMAN, PH.D., CASE NO. CGC-14-542330 DECLARATION OF BRIAN LEDGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FIRST, 120-DAY CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATES Plaintiff, vs. NEWEGG INC.; MAGNELL ASSOCIATE, INC.; ROSEWILL, INC., and DOES 1-150, FILED CONCURRENTLY WITH: 1. Notice of Motion and Motion 2. Memorandum of Points and Authorities 3. [Proposed] Order Defendant. Date: December 10, 2015 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept: 206 eee I, Brian Ledger, declare: 1. Tam attorney licensed to practice in the State of California. I am a partner of Gordon & Rees LLP, attorneys of record for Defendants NEWEGG, INC., MAGNELL ASSOCIATE, INC. and ROSEWILL, INC. (collectively, “Defendants”). This declaration is made in support of Defendants’ motion for a 120-day continuance of the trial and trial-related deadlines in this action. Unless otherwise stated, I am familiar with the matters stated in this declaration and if called upon to do so, would competently testify thereto. -l- DECLARATION OF BRIAN LEDGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FIRST, 120-DAY CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATESSan Diego, CA 92101 Gordon & Rees LLP 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 w wn 2. Plaintiff has sued Defendants under Proposition 65, alleging that defendants have failed to adequately warn consumers of the alleged presence of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (“DEHP”) in vinyl/PVC cords and other components of headsets sold by Defendants in California. 3. The trial in this case is currently scheduled for January 19, 2016. I will be appearing as trial counsel for Defendants. 4. Tam also lead trial counsel in a matter that has a trial date of January 11, 2016, in the matter of Andreas Vellios vs. UMSE, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC434872, Judge Terry Green, presiding. That trial date cannot be moved, as the case is on the brink of exceeding the five-year trial deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. The trial is estimated to last 20-25 court days. In addition, I am lead trial counsel in a matter pending in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Louis Desorbo v. United States Steel Corporation, et al., Case No. 03450, with a trial date of February 1, 2016. Further, I am lead trial counsel in a matter pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles vy. PCC Technical Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-01626 FMO (CWx), with a trial date of February 9, 2016. That trial is of a CERCLA action and is estimated to last 3-4 trial weeks, has already been continued twice, and the court indicated at a recent hearing that there would be no further continuances. 5. In addition to the conflict in trial dates in the foregoing matters, Defendants need additional time in which to complete fact discovery and pursue settlement. Since Defendants appeared in this action, counsel for Plaintiff and I have been engaged in efforts to resolve this case informally, and I believe continued efforts in that regard may prove successful. 6. In the interest of efficiency, Defendants’ resources have been focused on settlement rather than protracted litigation. For that reason, Defendants have necessary fact discovery left to complete. In order to adequately prepare Defendants’ defense, and to prepare experts for expert discovery, Defendants need additional time in which to complete fact discovery, including written discovery (which was recently served on Plaintiff). -2- DECLARATION OF BRIAN LEDGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FIRST, 120-DAY CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATESSan Diego, CA 92101 Gordon & Rees LLP 101 W. Broadway Suite 2000 L101858/25834626y.1 7. I believe 120 days will provide sufficient time in which to complete remaining fact discovery, which is necessary both to prepare Defendants’ expert witness, and to adequately complete trial preparations. Therefore, Defendants are requesting a 120-day continuance of the trial and all trial-related deadlines (including all discovery cutoffs and the expert exchange deadline). 8. T have been in communication with counsel for Plaintiff and had been under the impression we would be stipulating to a trial continuance, while settlement discussions continue. However, I recently learned that Plaintiff's counsel will not stipulate, necessitating this ex parte application. This motion is being filed as soon as practicable after I learned Plaintiffs counsel’s position regarding the stipulation. 9. This is the first time any party has requested a continuance of the trial in this action. No parties will be prejudiced by a continuance. 10. Pursuant to Court order shortening time, the notice period and briefing schedule on this notice of motion and motion is shortened. (See Order Shortening Time, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.) 11. Defendants twice previously applied ex parte to continue the trial and trial-related dates. On both occasions, Plaintiffs counsel advised that they did not oppose the request for 120-day continuance of the trial and trial-related dates. T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 20th day of November, 2015, in San Diego, California. Brian Ledget=” = 3- DECLARATION OF BRIAN LEDGER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FIRST, 120-DAY CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL AND RELATED DATESEXHIBIT AENDORSED San Francisco Couniy Superior Court NOV: 20 2095 CL : BY: oy ETHE COURT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA \ z . eputy Clerk CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE Case No.: C GC -[d- 542320 ~ \Watroe B - foomenr , WA J Plaintifi(s) ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE: MOTION TO aa Wal) vs. \(ay weed Ta Atocuall tere Ja Date: Pde ourds told, UE vv “Shrendeatts) Time: 9:30 A.M. Dept.: 206 Good cause appearing, it is the order of this court that the time for service of the motion A lah wue Tad! is shortened. All moving papers, including an endorsed-filed copy of the ex-parte application and this Order Shortening Time, shall be filed with the Court and served personally or by facsimile on all opposing counsel, or parties without counsel, no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date of this Order. All opposing papeis shail be filed and served personally or by facsimile no later than fl Du on Mabe, Mitiither 4 LUE. All reply papers shall be waived. Courtesy Copies of all papers must be lodged with Dept. 206 within one hour of filing. nov 2.02015 JOHN K. STEWART DATE: Judge of the-Superior Court ot JOHN kK. STEWART