Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,
Filing
221
ORDER granting 216 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Summary Judgment Motion filed by Robin Antonick. Reset Deadlines as to 194 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof. Responses due by 11/21/2012. Replies due by 12/5/2012. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/6/2012. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2012)
Case3:11-cv-01543-CRB Document216 Filed11/02/12 Page1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
Stuart M. Paynter (226147)
Jennifer L. Murray (Pro Hac Vice)
1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 626-4486
Facsimile: (866) 734-0622
Email: stuart@smplegal.com
jmurray@smplegal.com
10
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Robert B. Carey (Pro Hac Vice)
Leonard W. Aragon (Pro Hac Vice)
11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
leonard@hbsslaw.com
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robin Antonick
7
8
9
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
ROBIN ANTONICK, an Illinois Citizen,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:11-CV-01543-CRB
Plaintiff,
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION
v.
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., a California
corporation,
Defendant.
Judge:
Charles R. Breyer
Date Comp. Filed: March 30, 2011
Trial Date:
April 1, 2013
Case3:11-cv-01543-CRB Document216 Filed11/02/12 Page2 of 3
1
2
WHEREAS, the parties stipulated to an extended briefing schedule for Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment which was entered by the Court on October 25, 2012;
3
WHEREAS, pursuant to the stipulation Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for
4
summary judgment is due November 2, 2012, and EA’s reply in support of its motion for summary
5
judgment is due November 12, 2012, with the hearing on the motion to be held December 14,
6
2012;
7
8
WHEREAS, the parties stipulated to the current schedule due to the deposition of William
Kaiser being continued to October 31, 2012, because of a death in his family;
9
WHEREAS, William Kaiser’s deposition must be continued a second time because
10
Hurricane Sandy prevented Mr. Kaiser from attending his deposition and Mr. Kaiser is still without
11
electricity;
12
WHEREAS, the parties nonetheless stipulate that Mr. Kaiser’s deposition will take place on
13
November 19, 2012, and that Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
14
due on November 21, 2012 and Defendant’s reply in support of its motion for summary judgment
15
is due on December 5, 2012. The motion will still be heard on December 14, 2012;
16
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff
17
and Defendant, that Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment is now due on
18
November 21, 2012 and Defendant’s reply is now due on December 5, 2012.
19
20
The authority for and concurrence in the filing of this stipulated request has been obtained
from each of the signatories, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3).
21
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
DATED: November 2, 2012
22
23
By /s/ Leonard W. Aragon
LEONARD W. ARAGON
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robin Antonick
24
25
DATED: November 2, 2012
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
26
By /s/ Susan Harriman
SUSAN HARRIMAN
Attorneys for Defendant Electronic Arts
27
28
1
STIULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
Case No. 3:11-CV-01543-CRB
Case3:11-cv-01543-CRB Document216 Filed11/02/12 Page3 of 3
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 6
DATED: _______________, 2012
UNIT
ED
HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER
ERED
UNITED STATES IS SO ORD
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
IT
RT
7
harle
Judge C
ER
H
8
9
yer
s R. Bre
NO
6
R NIA
5
FO
4
LI
3
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
S
2
A
1
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
REGARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
Case No. 3:11-CV-01543-CRB
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?