Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Filing 41

Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Doc. 41

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 41

Filed 09/06/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP Jeffrey R. Chanin (No. 103649) Daralyn J. Durie (No. 169825) Dorothy McLaughlin (No. 229453) Kevin T. Reed (No. 240799) Email: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, Netflix, Inc. ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP Marshall B. Grossman (No. 35958) William J. O'Brien (No. 99526) Tony D. Chen (No. 176635) Dominique N. Thomas (No. 231464) The Water Garden 1620 26th Street Fourth Floor, North Tower Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 310-907-2000 Email: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant, Blockbuster Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, DOES 1-50, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTER ACTION. Case No. C 06 2361 WHA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIMS

379832.01

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO FILE RESPONSE Case No. C 06 2361 WHA
Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 41

Filed 09/06/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHEREAS, Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix") and Blockbuster, Inc. ("Blockbuster") (collectively, "the Parties") have previously stipulated that Blockbuster shall have until twenty (20) days after the Court entered its Order on Netflix's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, to Bifurcate and Stay Defendant Blockbuster's Antitrust Counterclaims and to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Unenforceability and Patent Misuse (the "Motion to Dismiss") to file its Answer and Counterclaims to Netflix's First Amended Complaint; WHEREAS, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), Netflix's reply to Blockbuster's counterclaims filed on June 13, 2006 would be due ten (10) days after Netflix received notice of the Court's entry its Order denying the Motion to Dismiss; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is unnecessary for Netflix to file a reply to Blockbuster's current counterclaims, as Blockbuster intends to file another Answer and Counterclaims in response to Netflix's First Amended Complaint, as set forth above, THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate that Netflix shall not be required to file any reply to Blockbuster's Answer and Counterclaims that were filed on June 13, 2006. Instead, Netflix shall file its response to Blockbuster's Answer and Counterclaims in response to Netflix's First Amended Complaint within the time provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2). DATED: September 6, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP BY:________/s/_____________ Eugene M. Paige Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Netflix, Inc. DATED: September 6, 2006 ALSCHULER GROSSMAN STEIN & KAHAN LLP BY:________/s/_____________ William J. O'Brien Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Blockbuster, Inc.

379832.01

1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO FILE RESPONSE CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA

Document 41

Filed 09/06/2006

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated:

I hereby attest, pursuant to section X of General Order 45, that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from William J. O'Brien, Esq., Attorney for the Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff. Dated: September 6, 2006 By: /s/ Eugene M. Paige__________

[PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

_____________________________________ HON. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

379832.01

2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING TIME TO FILE RESPONSE CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA