The PDF is Here
1. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ motions is due on or before July 15, 2016;
2. Plaintiff’s Opposition brief to the anti-SLAPP motions shall not exceed 40 pages of text (exclusive of caption page and tables);
3. Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is akin to a Rule 12 and not a Rule 56 Motion. Plaintiff stipulates that he will not seek to conduct any discovery to respond to the anti-SLAPP motion or the motion to dismiss unless defendants’ reply memoranda attempts to convert the motions to Rule 56 motions. Defendants stipulate that by entering into this stipulation plaintiff has not waived any right to claim that the California anti-SLAPP statute should not be applied in any manner to this case;
4. Within one week of the filing of Plaintiff’s Opposition, the parties shall meet-and-confer on the date for Defendants to file their Reply brief(s) and a proposed hearing date on the motions, and the parties thereafter shall promptly submit a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for the Court’s review;
5. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures is substituted in place of The Walt Disney Company as a Defendant in the case, and The Walt Disney Company is dismissed; and
6. The CMC currently scheduled for May 26, 2016 shall be vacated, and following the Court’s ruling the Defendants’ pending dispositive motions, the Court shall, if necessary, reschedule the CMC a trial setting conference for a date not to exceed one month from the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s dispositive motions, unless the Court finds good cause at the time to set the CMC for a later date.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
. . .
THE COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION AND ON THAT BASIS THE FOREGOING STIPULATION IS APPROVED AND IS SO ORDERED.
HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE