Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

Filing 453

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge A. Howard Matz: The Court GRANTS, nunc pro tunc, Googles Motion for Order for Schedule forFiling Dispositive Motions for the reasons stated in Googles briefs.1 In addition, theCourt STAYS further briefing on Perfect 10's just-filed motion for summary judgment(Docket No. 436) until further order of the Court. The August 17, 2009 hearing forPerfect 10's motion is vacated.The Court is aware that Google decided to file its three DMCA motions, noticedfor August 17, 2009, without awaiting the Courts order on its motion. AlthoughGoogles filing of the DMCA motions before the Courts order exhibited gamesmanship -- i.e., it gives the appearance of Google racing to the courthouse at the same time it waspurporting to seek the Courts guidance on an orderly sequence of the filing of motions --Google did not violate any Court order.The Court also notes that the parties have not proposed deadlines for oppositionand reply briefs. The Court requires the oppositions to Googles DMCA motions to befiled by July 27, 2009 and the replies to be filed by August 3, 2009. (smo)

O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 04-9484 AHM (SHx) PERFECT 10, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC., et al. Date July 8, 2009

Present: The Honorable Stephen Montes Deputy Clerk

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

The Court GRANTS, nunc pro tunc, Google's "Motion for Order for Schedule for Filing Dispositive Motions" for the reasons stated in Google's briefs.1 In addition, the Court STAYS further briefing on Perfect 10's just-filed motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 436) until further order of the Court. The August 17, 2009 hearing for Perfect 10's motion is vacated. The Court is aware that Google decided to file its three DMCA motions, noticed for August 17, 2009, without awaiting the Court's order on its motion. Although Google's filing of the DMCA motions before the Court's order exhibited gamesmanship - i.e., it gives the appearance of Google racing to the courthouse at the same time it was purporting to seek the Court's guidance on an orderly sequence of the filing of motions -Google did not violate any Court order. The Court also notes that the parties have not proposed deadlines for opposition and reply briefs. The Court requires the oppositions to Google's DMCA motions to be filed by July 27, 2009 and the replies to be filed by August 3, 2009.

: Initials of Preparer

SMO

1

Docket No. 411.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

CV-90 (06/04)