Free Declaration in Support - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-03002-MMC

Document 12

Filed 09/07/2007

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
LITTLER MENDELSON
A RRofEsstoNAL CORPORATION 650 California Slreel 20lri Flooi San F l a n c l s c o , CA 94108 2693

JOHN M. SKONBERG, Bar No. 069409 TYLER M. PAETKAU, Bar No. 146305 MICHAEL G. PEDHIRNEY, Bar No. 233164 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant APPLERA CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MEGAN KELLY, Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. C-07-3002 MMC DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. PEDHIRNEY IN SUPPORT OF SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT [PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER] Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge: September 14, 2007 10:30 a.m. 7, 19th Floor The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

APPLERA CORPORATION, Defendant.

I, MICHAEL G. PEDHIRNEY, HEREBY DECLARE AND STATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State

of California and this Honorable Court. I am an associate with the law firm of Littler Mendelson, counsel of record for Defendant in this action. 2. I make this declaration pursuant to the Court's August 9, 2007 Case

Management Conference Order which requires that a party submit a declaration in the event that the parties do not file a joint case management conference statement. I have personal knowledge of the
STA?EMNENYTDEC ^ SEPARATE CMC Case No. C-07-3002 MMC

Case 3:07-cv-03002-MMC

Document 12

Filed 09/07/2007

Page 2 of 3

1
2 3 4 5

facts set forth below and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto. 3. The Court's Case Management Order set the parties' Case Management

Conference for Friday, September 14, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. The Case Management Order also ordered counsel to submit a joint case management conference statement not less than seven days before the conference. In addition, the Order required the parties to submit a signed declaration setting forth the grounds for failure to submit a joint case management conference statement. 4. On Wednesday, September 5, 2007, at about 4:50 p.m., I sent a draft joint case

6 7 8 9
10 11
12

management conference statement to Plaintiffs counsel, Maureen McFadden, via e-mail. In the email, I informed Ms. McFadden that the joint case management conference statement was due by September 7, 2007 under the Court's Order. I requested that Ms. McFadden review the draft joint case management conference statement and submit any additional information that Plaintiff believed was relevant. In the e-mail, I invited Ms. McFadden to contact me if she had any questions or concerns regarding the contents of the draft joint case management conference statement. 5. On Thursday, September 6, 2007, at around 10:00 a.m., I received an e-mail

13
14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25

from Ms. McFadden in which she stated that she was working on the joint case management conference statement. In the e-mail, she expressed her opinion that the draft that Defendant provided was "argumentative and full of inaccuracies." 6. On Thursday, September 6, 2007, at around 3:45 p.m., I received an e-mail

from Ms. McFadden, in which she attached Plaintiffs revised joint case management conference statement. Later that evening, I reviewed Plaintiffs proposed joint case management conference statement. Plaintiff made revisions to the draft joint case management conference statement that I believed were unnecessary. Among other things, I believed that Plaintiffs draft was unduly

argumentative and did not accurately reflect Defendant's position with regard to the parties' litigation. 7. On Friday, September 7, 2007, at around 1 p.m., Tyler Paetkau, Defendant's

26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON 650 C a l i f o r n i a Street 20lh Floor San F r a n c i s c o . CA 9 4 1 Q 8 2 6 9 3 415 433 1&40

lead counsel, and I telephoned Ms. McFadden's office in order to resolve the parties' differences regarding the joint case management conference statement. No one at Ms. McFadden's office answered the telephone. Mr. Paetkau left a telephone message for Ms. McFadden and requested that

STATMENYTDEC 1S°SEPARATE CMC

2.

Case NO. 007-3002 MMC

Case 3:07-cv-03002-MMC

Document 12

Filed 09/07/2007

Page 3 of 3

1
2 3

she contact either him or me so that we could discuss the joint case management conference statement. 8. Later that afternoon, at about 2:35 p.m., I e-mailed Ms. McFadden a new draft

4 5 6

of the joint case management conference statement that I believed addressed both parties' concerns regarding the statement. In the e-mail, I requested that she provide us with her thoughts regarding the draft by 4:00 p.m. I informed her that if she did not respond by 4:00 p.m., Defendant would submit its own case management conference statement. 9. Within a few minutes after I sent Ms. McFadden the e-mail at 2:35 p.m. on

7
8 9
10 11 12

September 7,1 telephoned her office. Once again, no one answered the telephone. I left a voicemail message reiterating the contents of my earlier e-mail requesting that she respond to our draft by 4:00

p.m.
10. As of 4:45 p.m. on Friday, September 7, 2007,1 had not heard from Plaintiffs

13 14
15 16

counsel regarding her thoughts on Defendant's latest draft of the joint case management conference statement, nor has Mr. Paetkau. In light of the fact that the Court's Case Management Order requires that the parties submit a case management conference statement no later than seven days prior to the case management conference, the case management conference is scheduled for Friday, September 14, 2007 (which is seven days from September 7), and the parties have not reached an agreement on a mutually acceptable joint case management conference statement as of this time, Defendant is submitting its own case management conference statement. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this / day of September, 2007 at San Francisco, California.

17
18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27

MICHAEL G. PEDHIRNEt--*S
Firmwide:83064193.1.008292.1051

28
LITTLER MENDELSON

PEDHIRNEY DEC ISO SEPARATE CMC STATEMENT

3.

Case No. C-07-3002 MMC