Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 178

STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME REAGRDING BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL re 177 Stipulation filed by Fusion Garage PTE. LTD. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on September 22, 2010. (pvtlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2010)

Download PDF
Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD Doc. 178 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737) 2 claudestern@quinnemanuel.com Evette Pennypacker (Bar No. 203515) 3 evettepennypacker@quinnemanuel.com Thomas R. Watson (Bar No. 227264) 4 tomwatson@quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th floor 5 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 6 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 7 Joshua L. Sohn (Bar No. 250105) 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 8 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 9 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 10 Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE Ltd. 11 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP Andrew P. Bridges (Bar No.: 122761) 12 Abridges@winston.com David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530) 13 Dbloch@winston.com Matthew A. Scherb (Bar No. 237461) 14 mscherb@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 15 101 California Street, 39th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 16 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Inserserve, Inc., et al. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 20 INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH, a CASE NO. 09-cv-5812 RS (PVT) 21 Delaware corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, XXXXXXXXXXX INC., a Delaware corporation, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 22 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF Plaintiffs, TIME REGARDING BRIEFING ON 23 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL vs. 24 FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD, a Singapore 25 company, 26 27 28 04049.51632/3689571.1 Defendant. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT) Dockets.Justia.com 1 WHEREAS, on September 7, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of 2 Withheld Information and Documents (Dkt. 164) ("Motion"); 3 WHEREAS, Fusion Garage's Opposition to the Motion is currently due September 21, 4 2010, Plaintiffs' Reply is due September 28, 2010, and the Motion hearing is set for October 12, 5 2010; 6 WHEREAS, the Fusion Garage attorney with primary responsibility for Fusion Garage's 7 Opposition has been ill for the past several days and has been unable to effectively respond to 8 Plaintiffs' motion during this time; 9 WHEREAS, due to this illness, Fusion Garage has sought Plaintiffs' stipulation to a two- 10 day extension for Fusion Garage's Opposition to the Motion; 11 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs agree to this stipulation, on the condition that Fusion Garage 12 stipulate to a corresponding two-day extension for Plaintiffs' Reply to the Motion and that the 13 hearing currently set for October 12, 2010 remains on calendar; 14 WHEREAS, the following time modifications have been previously made in this case: 15 time to file a responsive pleading (Dkt. No. 16); motion to set the hearing dates on Fusion 16 Garage's motion to dismiss, to strike, and for a more definite statement ("motion to dismiss") and 17 Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to May, 6, 2010 (Dkt. No. 45); motion to shorten 18 time to hear Fusion Garage's motion to compel documents to support its opposition to Plaintiffs' 19 Motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 55); and setting new hearing date on Plaintiffs' 20 motion for a preliminary injunction and defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 64). 21 WHEREAS, the brief extensions sought by this stipulation will not impact the currently- 22 scheduled hearing date for the Motion; 23 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate that Fusion Garage shall have a two-day 24 extension, until September 23, 2010, to file its Opposition to the Motion. The parties further 25 stipulate that Plaintiffs shall have a corresponding two-day extension, until September 30, 2010, to 26 file their Reply to the Motion. The hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion--October 12, 2010--will remain 27 28 04049.51632/3689571.1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT) 1 1 unchanged. 2 IT IS SO STIPULATED. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 3 Dated: September 21, 2010 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DATED: September 21, 2010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 04049.51632/3689571.1 By /s/ Thomas R. Watson Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE., Ltd. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP By /s/ Matthew A. Scherb Attorneys for Plaintiffs TechCrunch, Inc. and CrunchPad, Inc. Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED. 22 DATED: September ___, 2010 HON. PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT) 2 1 2 FILER'S ATTESTATION Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest that I 3 have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from Matthew A. Sherb, counsel for 4 Plaintiffs. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 04049.51632/3689571.1 DATED: September 21, 2010 By: /s/ Thomas R. Watson Thomas R. Watson STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT) 3

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?