MMCA Group Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al

Filing 363

STIPULATION AND ORDER CHANGING DEADLINES. The deadline for HP's reply is extended to December 15, 2008. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 10, 2008. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Bingham McCutchen LLP WILLIAM F. ABRAMS (SBN 88805) william.abrams@bingham.com DAVID S. CANNON (SBN 209501) david.cannon@bingham.com KRISTEN A. PALUMBO (SBN 215857) kristen.palumbo@bingham.com ERIN A. SMART (SBN 246288) erin.smart@bingham.com 1900 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2223 Telephone: 650.849.4400 Facsimile: 650.849.4800 Attorneys for Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 MMCA GROUP LTD., a Virginia corporation, 16 Plaintiff, 17 v. 18 19 20 Defendants. 21 22 I. 23 24 25 26 27 28 C-06-7067 MMC (EMC) No. C-06-7067 MMC (EMC) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING DEADLINES [Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b), Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, 7-1, 7-12] [No Hearing Required] Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, PICA CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation, INTRODUCTION Plaintiff MMCA Group Ltd. ("MMCA") and Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") submit this stipulation and [proposed] order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, 7-1, and 7-12, requesting that the Court extend the deadline for HP to file its Reply brief on its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment/Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket 360). HP's Motion is currently scheduled to be heard on January 9, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING REPLY DEADLINE A/72776468.1/2007550-0000323151 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 2009, and the parties do not request a change to the hearing date. HP's Reply papers are due on December 10, 2008. The parties have stipulated and hereby request that the hearing date remain on January 9, 2009, with HP's reply due on December 15, 2008. II. BACKGROUND On October 31, 2008, HP filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Judgment on the Pleadings. The hearing on HP's Motion is currently set for January 9, 2009. MMCA submitted its Opposition on December 3, 2008 and HP's Reply is currently due on December 10, 2008. The parties previously stipulated and the Court granted on November 10 - a two week extension for MMCA to file its Opposition brief. This was based on a number of factors, including the dissolution of one of MMCA's attorney's firms, and the deposition schedule of one of MMCA's attorneys. The parties further stipulated to extend the briefing schedule to allow MMCA additional time to review HP's document production. The Court granted the parties' request to extend the briefing schedule on November 26, setting the current hearing and briefing deadlines. Since MMCA's Opposition was filed, several logistical issues have arisen related to MMCA's Opposition, which have delayed HP's ability to respond. These relate to the bates numbering and confidentiality designations of some of the documents MMCA included as Exhibits to Declarations in Support of its Opposition An issue has also arisen as to what MMCA exhibits and declaration testimony can be shown to HP's counsel. HP has requested and MMCA has agreed that the parties need additional time to resolve these issues and, accordingly, that it is appropriate for HP to have additional time to file its Reply brief. The Parties hereby agree to continue the briefing schedule on HP's Motion for Summary Judgment, such that HP's Reply will be due on December 15, 2008, and the hearing date will remain on January 9, 2009. 2 A/72776468.1/2007550-0000323151 C-06-7067 MMC (EMC) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING REPLY DEADLINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED ENLARGEMENT OF TIME Due to the logistical difficulties presented by MMCA's Opposition, which are described above, HP requires additional time to fully prepare its Reply. Because the hearing on HP's Motion was previously moved to January 9, 2009, there is ample time for the parties' requested extension to the deadline for HP's Reply. If the Court grants the parties' request and moves the deadline for HP's Reply to December 15, 2008, HP will be submitting its Reply almost three full weeks in advance of the hearing. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the [Proposed] Order continuing the deadline for HP's Reply to December 15, 2008. 9 10 11 12 DATED: December 9, 2008 13 By: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 A/72776468.1/2007550-0000323151 C-06-7067 MMC (EMC) /s/ William F. Abrams William F. Abrams BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 1900 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 849-4400 Facsimile: (650) 849-4800 Attorneys for Defendant HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DATED: December 9, 2008 By: /s/ Fred Geonetta Fred Geonetta LITTON & GEONETTA, LLP 120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-4770 Facsimile (415) 421-4785 Attorneys for Plaintiff MMCA GROUP, LTD. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING REPLY DEADLINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 [Proposed] Order Extending Briefing Schedule IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for HP's Reply on its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Judgment on the Pleadings is extended to December 15, 2008. The hearing on HP's Motion will remain on January 9, 2009. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 A/72776468.1/2007550-0000323151 C-06-7067 MMC (EMC) December 10 Dated: __________________________, 2008 ________________________________ Hon. Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING REPLY DEADLINE

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?