Schmuckley v. Rite Aid Corporation ( 2023 )

1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ERIC W. SITARCHUK, Admitted pro hac vice 2 eric.sitarchuk@morganlewis.com KELLY A. MOORE, Admitted pro hac vice 3 kelly.moore@morganlewis.com BENJAMIN P. SMITH, Bar No. 197551 4 benjamin.smith@morganlewis.com KEVIN M. PAPAY, Bar No. 274161 5 kevin.papay@morganlewis.com One Market, Spear Street Tower 6 San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Tel: +1.415.442.1000 7 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 8 Attorneys for Defendants RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID HDQTRS. 9 CORP, AND THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC. 10 (Additional counsel listed on signature page) 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KJM JDP 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ex rel. LLOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR. JOINT STIPULATION TO AMEND 16 SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER Plaintiffs, 17 vs. 18 RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID 19 HDQTRS. CORP., THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC. 20 Defendants. 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. LLOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR., 22 Plaintiffs, 23 Vs. 24 RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID 25 HDQTRS. CORP., THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC. 26 Defendants. 27 28 1 RECITALS 2 WHEREAS, Defendants’ rebuttal experts need additional time to finish their review of the 3 1,000+ pharmacy records and medical records cited and analyzed in the three expert disclosures 4 submitted by Plaintiff State of California as represented in this action by the Division of Medi-Cal 5 Fraud and Elder Abuse (“DMFEA”); 6 WHEREAS, one of Defendants’ rebuttal experts has an upcoming medical surgery that 7 limits his availability to review the above-referenced records and perform supporting analysis; 8 WHEREAS, one of Defendants’ rebuttal experts has upcoming travel that limits his 9 availability to review the above-referenced records and perform supporting analysis; 10 WHEREAS, the parties agree that DMFEA will benefit from additional time to analyze 11 Defendants’ forthcoming rebuttal expert disclosures and supporting evidence; 12 WHEREAS, on July 18, 2023, Defendants asked the Parties for an approximate three- 13 week extension of the deadline to serve rebuttal expert disclosures; 14 WHEREAS, counsel for DMFEA is unavailable from September 19 to October 2, 2023; 15 WHEREAS, the Parties in good faith have met and conferred; 16 STIPULATION 17 THE PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, THEREFORE 18 HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 19 The parties agree to amend the scheduling order as follows: 20 Event Current Deadline Proposed Modified Deadline 21 Rebuttal expert disclosures (other August 10, 2023 August 29, 2023 than sampling methodology/design) 22 Expert discovery completed September 21, 2023 November 3, 2023 Last day to hear dispositive motion March 29, 2024 May 10, 2024 23 The parties agree that in this context, the term “deadline” means to conduct all depositions 24 (where applicable) and resolve any disputes relative to discovery by appropriate order if 25 necessary, and where discovery has been ordered, to obey the order. 26 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 27 28 1 Respectfully submitted, 2 Dated: July 21, 2023 ROB BONTA Attorney General of the State of California 3 4 By /s/ Emmanuel R. Salazar (authorized on 7/21/23) Emmanuel R. Salazar 5 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor STATE OF 6 CALIFORNIA Dated: July 21, 2023 7 WATERS & KRAUS, LLP 8 By /s/ Wm. Paul Lawrence, II (authorized on 7/21/23) 9 Wm. Paul Lawrence, II plawrence@waterskraus.com 10 Waters & Kraus 11 37163 Mountville Road Middleburg, VA 20117 12 Telephone: (540) 687-6999 E-mail: plawrence@waterskraus.net 13 Attorneys for Qui Tam Plaintiff LOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR. 14 15 Dated: July 21, 2023 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 16 By /s/ Kevin M. Papay Benjamin P. Smith 17 Kevin M. Papay One Market, Spear Street Tower 18 San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 19 Telephone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 20 E-mail: Kevin.Papay@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Defendants 21 RITE AID CORPORATION, RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP., THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC. 22 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 ORDER 2 The Court, having considered the Joint Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order, finds 3 ood cause and orders the Joint Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order is approved. The court g p g Pp 4 || notes this is the parties’ seventh request to amend the scheduling order since October 2021. As p q 5 || such, the court will not grant any further requests for extensions save for extraordinar g y q 6 || circumstances. Spurlock v. F.B.I., 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing a district p 7 || court's “inherent authority to manage its docket”). The court orders the scheduling order is 8 || amended as follows: 9 Current Deadline Proposed Modified Deadline 10 Rebuttal expert disclosures August 10, 2023 August 29, 2023 (other than sampling 11 methodology/design Expert discovery completed September 21, 2023 November 3, 2023 12 Last day to hear dispositive March 29, 2024 May 10, 2024 13 motion 14 The term “deadline” means to conduct all depositions (where applicable) and resolve any 15 disputes relative to discovery by appropriate order if necessary, and where discovery has been 16 ordered, to obey the order. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | DATED: July 24, 2023. 19 20 1 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No.: 2:12-cv-1699 KIM JDP