Business Integration Technology, Inc. v. Mulesoft,Inc., et al

Filing 148

ORDER re 147 Brief, filed by Philip T. Bradley. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 1/28/2013. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2013)

1
2
3

CLAASSEN, Professional Corporation
John S. Claassen, Esq. (212954)
1970 Broadway, Suite 525
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

4
5

Attorney for Defendant
PHILIP T. BRADLEY

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
MULESOFT, INC. & PHILIP T.
)
BRADLEY,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________ )
BUSINESS INTEGRATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte
Case No.: 3:11-cv-04782-EDL
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF TO PERMIT DEFENDANT
TO FILE SUR-REPLY AND ORDER
Date:
Time:
Room:

Feb. 12, 2013
9:00 a.m.
15 E

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO

PERMIT DEFENDANT TO FILE SUR-REPLY

3:11-cv-04782-EDL

1

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO
PERMIT DEFENDANT TO FILE SUR-REPLY

2

Defendant Philip T. Bradley (“Defendant”) respectfully submits this Administrative
3
Motion for permission to file a Sur-Reply pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(d).
4
5
6

Plaintiff filed a sparse, four-paragraph Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 135) on or
around December 31, 2012.

The filing sought leave to file a claim of breach of NDA against

Defendant – a non-signatory to the NDA – without any explanation regarding why a company

7

employee should be liable for the company’s contract. The document lacked either a supporting

8

memorandum or declaration.

9

After Defendant filed an opposition, Plaintiff submitted a reply that, for the first time,

10

offered a theory regarding why Defendant should be liable on the contract of another. As

11

explained in the accompanying Sur-Reply, the theory runs directly counter to California agency

12

law.

13

Local Civil Rule 7-3(d) requires court approval to file documents relating to motions

14

after the filing of a reply. Because Defendant has not yet had an opportunity to address the

15

theory asserted by Plaintiff and because citations to applicable California law should benefit the

16

Court in its consideration of Plaintiff’s motion, he respectfully requests leave to file a Sur-Reply.

17

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: January 17, 2013

CLAASSEN, Professional Corporation
/s/ John S. Claassen, Esq.

19
By:

20

John S. Claassen, Esq.

21

Attorney for Defendant
PHILIP T. BRADLEY

RT

28

porte

La
beth D.
ge Eliza
Jud

NO

27

Date: January 28, 2013

ER

H
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
TO PERMIT DEFENDANT TO FILE SUR-REPLY

R NIA

26

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

FO

25

UNIT
ED

24

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

23

LI

22

A

18

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

3:11-cv-04782-EDL