Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.

Filing 272

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO VSI'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/5/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2013)

1 SEAN PAK (Bar No. 219032)
[e-mail]
2 JENNIFER A. KASH (Bar No. 203679)
[e-mail]
3
KEVIN A. SMITH (Bar No. 250814)
4 [e-mail]
HOWARD Y. CHEN (Bar No. 265015)
5 [e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
6 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
7
Telephone:
[phone]
[phone]
8 Facsimile:
9 Attorneys for Defendant MicroStrategy Inc.
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13

VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC.,
14
Plaintiff ,
15
vs.
16

CASE NO. 3:11-6637-RS
ORDER
JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
VSI’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE

MICROSTRATEGY INC.,
17
Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
04706.51984/5449348.1

Case No. 3:11-06637-RS
-1JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Vasudevan Software, Inc. (“VSi”) filed its Motion to Exclude

2 MicroStrategy’s Experts’ Opinions Regarding “Disparate Databases” (“Motion”) on July 25, 2013
3 making MicroStrategy’s deadline to respond August 8, 2013;
4

WHEREAS, the hearing for the Motion is set for September 26, 2013;

5

WHEREAS, MicroStrategy has requested and VSi has agreed that MicroStrategy’s

6 deadline to respond to the Motion be August 29, 2013 and VSi’s deadline to reply to
7 MicroStrategy’s response be September 12, 2013;
8

WHEREAS, the extension would not change any other date set by the Court;

9

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, by and

10 through their respective counsel, and subject to the Court’s approval, that the deadline for
11 MicroStrategy to respond to Plaintiff Vasudevan Software, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude
12 MicroStrategy’s Experts’ Opinions Regarding “Disparate Databases” be August 29, 2013 and the
13 deadline for VSi to reply to MicroStrategy’s response be September 12, 2013.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Dated: August 5, 2013
By: /s/ _Brooke Taylor (with permission)______
Brooke A. M. Taylor
Lead Attorney
WA Bar No. 33190 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Jordan W. Connors
WA Bar No. 41649 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, Washington 98101-3000
T: [phone]
F: [phone] (fax)
Stephen E. Morrissey
CA Bar No. 187865
[e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
T: [phone]
F: [phone] (fax)

28
04706.51984/5449348.1

Case No. 3:11-06637-RS
-2JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Michael F. Heim
TX Bar No. 09380923 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Leslie V. Payne
TX Bar No. 00784736 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Eric J. Enger
TX Bar No. 24045833 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Nick P. Patel
TX Bar No. 24076610 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
600 Travis Street, Suite 6710
Houston, Texas 77002-2912
T: [phone]
F: [phone](fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

12
13 Dated: August 5, 2013

By: /s/ Howard Y. Chen

14

Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar. No. 170151)
[e-mail]
Sean S. Pak (Bar No. 219032)
[e-mail]
Jennifer A. Kash (Bar No. 203679)
[e-mail]
Kevin A. Smith (Bar No. 250814)
[e-mail]
Howard Y. Chen (Nar No. 265015)
[e-mail]

15
16
17
18
19
20

23

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

24

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

21
22

25
26
27
28
04706.51984/5449348.1

Case No. 3:11-06637-RS
-3JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 5th day of August, 2013, a true and correct copy of the

3 foregoing document was served on all parties via CM/ECF and/or email to counsel.
4
5

_/s/ Howard Y. Chen____
Howard Y. Chen

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
04706.51984/5449348.1

Case No. 3:11-06637-RS
-4JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME

1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
8/5/13
DATED: ________________________ _____________________________________
3
4

[Hon. Richard Seeborg]
United States District Court Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
04706.51984/5449348.1

Case No. 3:11-06637-RS
-5JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME