Miller v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Filing 97

STIPULATION FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 by Facebook, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Theresa A. Sutton)(Sutton, Theresa) (Filed on 12/30/2010)

Download PDF
Miller v. Facebook, Inc. et al Doc. 9 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 I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985) nchatterjee@orrick.com THOMAS J. GRAY (STATE BAR NO. 191411) tgray@orrick.com THERESA A. SUTTON (STATE BAR NO. 211857) tsutton@orrick.com JULIO C. AVALOS (STATE BAR NO. 255350) javalos@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650-614-7400 Facsimile: 650-614-7401 Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION DANIEL M. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and YAO WEI YEO, Defendants. Case No. 3:10-CV-00264 (WHA) STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 3:10-CV-00264 (WHA) Dockets.Justia.com 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 Defendant Facebook, Inc. and Plaintiff Daniel M. Miller, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate to change time for the following reasons: A. Reasons For the Enlargement of Time The parties have had numerous discovery related discussions and disputes and the parties are in the process of resolving those disputes. On December 17, 2010, the parties exchanged substantive discovery in response to the outstanding discovery requests by answering each other's respective pending interrogatories and producing documents responsive to the parties' respective requests for production, if any, or otherwise objecting to the requests. The parties in good faith continue to engage in exchanging substantive discovery. On December 21, 2010, the parties met and conferred regarding the current Case Management Order (Dkt. No. 55) and discovery schedule and agreed that the parties require additional time to conclude discovery and prepare their respective cases. Further, the Court's Case Management Order appears to contain an error as to the scheduled date for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of full expert reports. B. Previous Time Modifications There have been no other time modifications in this case. C. Effect The Requested Time Modification Will Have On Schedule The requested modifications are as follows: Current Schedule The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be January 31, 2011. The last date for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of full expert reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof ("opening reports") shall be JULY 31, 2011. Within FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS of said deadline, all other parties must disclose any expert reports on the same issue ("opposition reports"). Within SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS thereafter, the party with the burden of proof must disclose any reply reports rebutting specific material in opposition The cutoff for all expert discovery shall be FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS after -1Proposed Schedule March 28, 2011 *March 28, 2011 Counsel believe there is a typo in the current case management order and the date is meant to be January 31, 2011 and not July 31, 2011 Same Same Same STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 3:10-CV-00264 (WHA) 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 the deadline for reply reports At least 28 CALENDAR DAYS before the due date for opening reports, each party shall serve a list of issues on which it will offer any expert testimony in its case-inchief (including from non-retained experts). The last date to file dispositive motions shall be MARCH 3, 2011. No dispositive motions shall be heard more than 35 days after this deadline The FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE shall be at 2:00 P.M. on APRIL 18, 2011. A JURY TRIAL shall begin on APRIL 25, 2011, at 7:30 A.M., in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102. Same April 28, 2011 June 13, 2011 June 20, 2011 IT IS SO STIPULATED: Dated: December 30, 2010 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP /s/ Theresa A. Sutton /s/ Theresa A. Sutton Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC. Dated: December 30, 2010 HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC /s/ Brian D. Hancock /s/ Brian D. Hancock Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL MILLER Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, X(B), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from its signatory. Dated: January 9, 2007 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Theresa A. Sutton /s/ Theresa A. Sutton STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 3:10-CV-00264 (WHA) -2- 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 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January ___, 2011 Honorable William Alsup United States District Judge -3- STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 3:10-CV-00264 (WHA) 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document(s) filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on December 30, 2010. Dated: December 30, 2010. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Theresa A. Sutton /s/ Theresa A. Sutton -1- STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-2 3:10-CV-00264 (WHA)

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?