Symantec Corporation v. Veeam Software Corporation
Filing
97
ORDER: Initial Case Management Conference previously set to occur in early February are continued to 2/22/2013 02:30 PM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 1/22/13., Motions terminated: (42 in 3:12-cv-05443-SI) STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Reschedule Initial Case Management Conference filed by Veeam Software Corporation. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NIXON PEABODY LLP
Gregory P. O’Hara (State Bar No. 131963)
2 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 500
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: 650.320.7750
Facsimile: 866.294.5752
Email: gohara@nixonpeabody.com
STERNE KESSLER GOLDSTEIN & FOX
Mark Fox Evens (pro hac vice)
Bryon L. Pickard (pro hac vice)
1100 New York Avenue
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: 202.371.2600
Facsimile: 202.371.2540
Attorneys for Defendant Veeam Software Corporation
QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
Jennifer A. Kash (State Bar No. 203679)
jenniferkash@quinnemanuel.com
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
19
Dave Nelson (pro hac vice)
davenelson@quinnemanuel.com
Chris Lawnicki (pro hac vice)
chrislawnicki@quinnemanuel.com
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: 312.705.7400
Facsimile: 312.705.7401
20
Attorneys for Plaintiff Symantec Corporation
16
17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
21
22
23
SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
24
Plaintiff,
25
26
27
vs.
VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION
Defendant.
Case No. 3:12-cv-00700 SI (consolidated
for all purposes with Civil Action No. 1201035-SI)
Related Case No. 3:12-cv-05443 SI]
AMENDED STIPULATION TO
RESCHEDULE FURTHER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
28
AMENDED STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1
2
WHEREAS on January 11, 2013, Plaintiff Symantec Corporation and Defendant Veeam
3
Software Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”) stipulated, filed and submitted to the
4
Court a Stipulation to Reschedule the Case Management Conference [Docket No. 93]
5
(“Stipulation”).
6
WHEREAS the Stipulation stated that the Case Management Conference the Parties sought
7
to continue was scheduled for February 1, 2013. The Further Case Management Conference in this
8
case is actually scheduled for February 15, 2013 at 3:00 p.m.
9
WHEREAS, the Initial Case Management Conference in Symantec Corporation v. Veeam
10
Software Corporation, Case No. 3:12 –CV-05443, which is related to this action, is set for February
11
1, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
12
13
WHEREAS, Veeam’s counsel is unavailable on February 1, 2013 and Symantec’s counsel is
unavailable on February 15, 2013.
14
WHEREAS the Parties have agreed and respectfully request that the Initial Case
15
Management Conference scheduled for February 1, 2013 in related Case No. 3:12 –CV-05443 and
16
the Further Case Management Conference in this action scheduled for February 15, 2013 at 3:00
17
p.m. be rescheduled for the same date and time.
18
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed and propose that the Initial Case Management
19
Conference in related Case No. 3:12 –CV-05443 and the Further Case Management Conference in
20
this action be rescheduled for February 22, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
21
Therefore the Parties hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, that:
22
1.
The Parties have agreed to continue the Further Case Management Conference to
23
be heard on the same date as the Initial Case Management Conference scheduled in the related
24
case [3:12-cv-05443 SI];
25
26
2.
The Parties are available for the Further Case Management Conference on
February 22, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.; and
27
28
-1AMENDED STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
3.
1
The Parties jointly request that the Further Case Management Conference be
2
rescheduled to February 22, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. or on a date and time thereafter at the Court’s
3
convenience.
4
5
DATED: January 18, 2013
NIXON PEABODY LLP
By: /s/ GREGORY P. O’HARA
Gregory P. O’Hara (State Bar No. 131963)
2 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 500
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: 650.320.7750
Facsimile: 866.294.5752
Email: gohara@nixonpeabody.com
6
7
8
9
10
Attorney for Defendant Veeam Software Corporation
11
12
13
14
DATED: January 18, 2013
15
QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN
18
By: /s/ JENNIFER A. KASH
Jennifer A. Kash (Bar No. 203679)
jenniferkash@quinnemanuel.com
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
19
Attorneys for Plaintiff Symantec Corporation.
16
17
20
14288612.1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2AMENDED STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1
2
3
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
Pursuant to General Order No. 45(X)(B), I hereby certify that concurrence in the filing of
this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories shown above.
4
5
/s/ Gregory P. O’Hara
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3AMENDED STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12
13
14
SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
15
Plaintiff,
16
17
Case No. 3:12-cv-00700 SI (consolidated
for all purposes with Civil Action No. 1201035-SI)
Related Case No. 3:12-cv-05443 SI]
vs.
VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION
Defendant.
18
PROPOSED ORDER ON AMENDED
STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE
FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
19
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
20
The Further Case Management Conference currently set for February 15, 2013 is
21
22
rescheduled to February 22, 2013 at 2:30 p.m.
DATED: January ___, 2013
22
23
24
By:
Hon. Susan Illston
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
14288612.1
PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING AMENDED STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE FURTHER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
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?