Jurin v. Google Inc.

Filing 55

NOTICE of Objection/Request for Clarification of 54 Pretrial Scheduling Order by Google, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Caruso, Margaret) Modified on 6/30/2011 (Meuleman, A).

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Margret M. Caruso (Bar No. 243473)
[e-mail]
2
Cheryl Galvin (Bar No. 252262)
[e-mail]
3
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Fifth Floor
4 Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
Telephone:
[phone]
5 Facsimile:
[phone]
6 Attorneys for Defendant
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION

10
11 DANIEL JURIN, an Individual,

CASE NO. 2:09-cv-03065-MCE-KJN (TEMP)

12

GOOGLE INC.’S NOTICE OF
OBJECTION/REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF THE PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER

13

Plaintiff,
vs.

14 GOOGLE INC.,
15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 2:09-cv-03065-MCE-KJN (TEMP)
GOOGLE INC.’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION/REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2

NOTICE OF OBJECTION/REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) has reviewed the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order

3 dated June 20, 2011 (Docket No. 54). Google appreciates the detailed scheduling framework set
4 forth in the Order, but submits this notice pursuant to Section XIV of the Order to raise one issue
5 concerning the timing of motions for summary judgment.
6

The Order does not prohibit either party from filing a motion for summary judgment

7 before August 2012, but it could be construed as setting a hearing for any motion for summary
8 judgment on October 4, 2012. Google anticipates that case-dispositive issues will be ripe for
9 summary judgment later this year—much earlier than the current deadlines—and would like to
10 facilitate expeditious resolution of this matter. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, Google
11 requests that the Order be amended expressly to provide for the possibility of Google filing a
12 motion for summary judgment before August 2012, and for a briefing and hearing schedule
13 consistent with the two month schedule contemplated by the Order. Specifically, Google requests
14 that the Order be amended to include the following language after the first paragraph of Section
15 VI, Motion Hearing Schedule (page 4, lines 18-24):
16

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendant may file a motion for summary

17

judgment before August 9, 2012. In that event, Plaintiff’s opposition to

18

Defendant’s motion and Plaintiff’s cross-motion, if any, shall be filed three weeks

19

after the summary judgment brief is filed. Defendant’s reply and opposition to

20

Plaintiff’s cross-motion shall be filed two weeks after that. Plaintiff’s reply (if

21

applicable) shall be filed two weeks after Defendant’s reply. Hearing on such

22

motions shall be as soon as practicable thereafter, but not earlier than one week

23

after submission of the final briefing.

24

For the foregoing reasons, Google respectfully requests the Pretrial Scheduling Order be

25 amended as set forth above.
26
27
28
CASE NO. 2:09-cv-03065-MCE-KJN (TEMP)
-1GOOGLE INC.’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION/REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

1 DATED: June 29, 2011
2

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

3
4
5

By /s/ Margret M. Caruso
Margret M. Caruso
Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 2:09-cv-03065-MCE-KJN (TEMP)
-2GOOGLE INC.’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION/REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are

3 being served on June 29, 2011 with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per
4 Local Rule 135(a).
5
6
7

/s/ Margret M. Caruso
Margret M. Caruso

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 2:09-cv-03065-MCE-KJN (TEMP)
-3GOOGLE INC.’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION/REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER