Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Filing 34

Attachment 3
Declaration of Leo L. Lam in Support of 33 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff Netflix's Notice of Motion and Motion Under Civil L.R. 7-11 for Relief from July 28, 2006 Deadline in Case Management Order and for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed byNetflix, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s)33) (Lam, Leo) (Filed on 8/2/2006)

Download PDF
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. Doc. 34 Att. 3 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 34-4 LAW OFFICES Filed 08/02/2006 Page 1 of 1 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 710 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-1704 TELEPHONE (415) 391-5400 FAX (415) 397-7188 WWW.KVN.COM LEO i- LAM LLAMtôKVN.COM August 1, 2006 BY EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Dominique N. Thomas Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan LLP 1620 26th Street Fourh Floor, Nort Tower Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 Re: Netjix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc., Case No. C-06-2361 WH; United States District Cour for the Northern District of Californa Dear Ms. Thomas I wrte in response to your letter earlier today to Jeff Chanin, who is in Asia for business. Our filing of the amended complaint dated July 26 appears to have been premised on an oversight. We misread Judge Alsup's Case Management Order to provide that pleadings may be amended on or before July 28. We wil immediately seek relIeffrom the scheduling order and leave to file the amended complaint to correct this mistake and apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused. Besides correcting typographical errors, the only change we introduced to the amended complaint was to add a claim for wilful infrngement with respect to the ' 3 81 patent. Please let us know as soon as possible whether BBI wil stipulate to our fiing this motion. Regarding our preliminar infingement contentions, our first correction was to fix the claimed priority date, which was a clerical error occasioned by Daralyn Durie's absence from the office at the time we first served our contentions. Our second amendment was for the purpose of including Bates ranges to update and conform the disclosure to our document production, which was ministerial and indeed discussed with BiH û'Brien of your office. Please let us know whether it is BBI's position that NF requires leave of cour for these amendments to the preliminar infringement contentions. Very trly yours, 0-, C ,CctN¡tL Leo L. Lam 378111.01

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?