Quirk v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. et al

Filing 73

ORDER by Judge Seeborg granting 72 Stipulation (rslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2012)

Case3:11-cv-03773-RS Document72 Filed10/12/12 Page1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

JEFFREY T. MAKOFF (SBN 120004)
HEATHER A. LANDIS (SBN 267615)
MARIO R. NICHOLAS (SBN 273122)
VALLE MAKOFF LLP
2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2370
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Joe Quirk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13

JOE QUIRK,
Plaintiff,

14
vs.

15
16

SONY PICTURES
ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al.,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. C 11-03773 RS
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND
STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE
BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[L.R. 6-2, 7-2]
Trial Date:

March 25, 2013

MSJ Filed:
Current Opp Deadline:
Current Reply Deadline:
Current Hearing Date:

Sept. 27, 2012
Oct. 11, 2012
Oct. 18, 2012
Nov. 1, 2012

Proposed Opp Deadline:
Proposed Reply Deadline:
Proposed Hearing Date:

Nov. 6, 2012
Nov. 15, 2012
Nov. 29, 2012

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[L.R. 6-2, 7-2]; CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03773 RS

Case3:11-cv-03773-RS Document72 Filed10/12/12 Page2 of 4

1

Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rules 6-2 and 7-2, Plaintiff Joe

2

Quirk (“plaintiff”) and defendants Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. (“Sony”), Columbia

3

Pictures Industries, Inc. (“Columbia”), Pariah, David Koepp and John Kamps (collectively,

4

“defendants”) (plaintiff and defendants together, “stipulating parties”), by and through their

5

undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows:

6
7

STIPULATION
A.

WHEREAS, on September 27, 2012, defendants filed and served a Motion

8

for Summary Judgment on plaintiff’s copyright-based First, Second, Third, and Fifth

9

Claims for Relief (“Motion”). Under the schedule set by the Court, any opposition to the

10

Motion was due on October 11, 2012, any reply was due by October 18, 2012, and the

11

hearing was set for November 1, 2012;

12
13
14

B.

WHEREAS, stipulating parties agreed that plaintiff would not be required to

file his opposition brief on October 11, 2012 so that the parties could work out a stipulation
regarding the briefing schedule for the Motion;

15
16
17
18
19

C.

WHEREAS, the deadline for expert disclosures and final reports is October

26, 2012;
D.

WHEREAS, plaintiff seeks to receive the final expert report from Mark Rose,

defendants’ expert who submitted a declaration in support of the Motion, prior to filing and

20

serving his opposition to the Motion. Plaintiff additionally seeks to schedule the expert

21

deposition of Mr. Rose prior to filing and serving plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion;

22
23
24

E.

WHEREAS, defendants agree that Mr. Rose will be made available for his

expert deposition on October 30, 2012, before plaintiff’s opposition brief is due;
F.

WHEREAS, the parties agree to extend the briefing and hearing schedule for

25

the Motion such that any opposition would be due by November 6, 2012; any reply would

26

be due by November 15, 2012; and the hearing would be continued until November 29,

27

2012 at 1:30 p.m.;

28
29

1

30

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[L.R. 6-2, 7-2]; CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03773 RS

31
32
33

Case3:11-cv-03773-RS Document72 Filed10/12/12 Page3 of 4

1

G.

WHEREAS, the commentary to N.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-2 encourages parties

2

to stipulate and seek a Court order establishing longer schedules for briefing and hearing

3

complex motions;

4

H.

5

2013; and

6
7
8
9
10

WHEREAS, the dispositive motion hearing cut-off is not until January 24,

I.

WHEREAS, the parties have not previously sought an extension of the

briefing and hearing schedule for the Motion, the parties would not be prejudiced by the
extension requested and the extension requested would not impact other scheduled dates in
this matter.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED:

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

That the briefing schedule and the hearing schedule for the Motion be modified as
follows:
 Any opposition to the Motion will be due by November 6, 2012;
 Any reply in support of the Motion will be due by November 15, 2012; and
 The hearing on the Motion will be continued until November 29, 2012 at 1:30
p.m.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated October 12, 2012

Valle Makoff LLP
By: /s/ Heather A. Landis
Heather A. Landis
Attorneys for Plaintiff Joe Quirk

Dated October 12, 2012

CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC
By: /s/ Albert Giang
Albert Giang
Attorneys for Defendants
Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Columbia
Pictures Industries, Inc.; Pariah; David Koepp; and
John Kamps

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

2
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[L.R. 6-2, 7-2]; CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03773 RS

Case3:11-cv-03773-RS Document72 Filed10/12/12 Page4 of 4

1

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4
5

Dated: October 23, 2012

____________________________________
HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
District Court Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

3
[PROPOSED] ORDER AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[L.R. 6-2, 7-2]; CASE NO. 3:11-CV-03773 RS