Forte Capital Partners, LLC v. Harris Cramer LLP et al

Filing 355

ORDER Re 354 Plaintiff's Letter of March 10, 2010. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/12/2010. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. HARRIS CRAMER, LLP, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ FORTE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff, No. C-07-1237 EMC ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S LETTER OF MARCH 10, 2010 (Docket No. 354) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Previously, the Court ordered Forte to provide a declaration regarding costs owed to vendors. The Court further ordered that the parties provide a joint letter to the extent that any issues remain unresolved. See Docket No. 352 (order). On March 10, 2010, Forte submitted a declaration as ordered. See Docket No. 353 (McKelvey Decl.). However, no joint letter was filed. Forte, however, did provide a letter in which it explained and provided proof that it had attempted to work with TTLG to provide a letter to the Court. See Docket No. 354 (letter). Having reviewed the declaration and letter from Forte, the Court hereby rules as follows. (1) The Court deems TTLG's failure to provide information for a joint letter as a

concession that there are no outstanding disputes regarding costs owed to vendors. (2) To the extent TTLG might argue that the Court's prior orders have required proof of

satisfaction from the vendors themselves, see Docket No. 354 (Ex. A) (e-mail), TTLG is incorrect. The Court's order of February 3, 2010, simply required proof of satisfaction. It did not state that that proof had to come from the vendors themselves. See Docket No. 348 (order). The Court's order of March 10, 2010, specifically allowed for a declaration from Forte.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(3)

To the extent TTLG argues that the Court has required payment of late charges and

interest to any vendors, see Docket No. 354 (Ex. A) (e-mail), TTLG again is incorrect. The Court required Forte to pay the costs owed to vendors. See Docket No. 300 (Order at 3). If a vendor decided that it would waive any interest or penalties assessed, that is the decision of the vendor. (4) The Court finds the McKelvey declaration submitted by Forte adequate. Thus, the

Court shall not at this juncture require any further proceedings. The Court advises Forte, however, that, consistent with the Court's order of July 21, 2009, see Docket No. 300, it is expected to pay any costs owed to Video Depositions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: March 12, 2010 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge

2