Genetic Technologies Limited v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.

Filing 99

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO RESCHEDULE MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS HEARING. Motion Hearing set for 5/29/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg.Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/6/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 Robert J. Goldman (CSB# 189922) robert.goldman@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284 Tel: (650) 617-4000 Fax: (650) 617-4090 5 Attorneys for Defendant AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 6 [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 8 9 10 11 GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, an Australian corporation, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 v. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:12-cv-01616-RS ORDER JOINT STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS Courtroom: 3 Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS Case No. 3:12-cv-01616-RS 1 2 Plaintiff Genetic Technologies Limited (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”), hereby stipulate as follows: 3 WHEREAS, on April 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed its (1) Notice of Motion and 4 Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 89); 5 and (2) Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim IV (Dkt. No. 90); 6 and WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s motions were noticed for a May 22, 2014 Hearing Date; 7 8 and 9 WHEREAS, counsel for Defendant first notified counsel for Plaintiff on April 10 15, 2014, that counsel was not available for a May 22 hearing because counsel’s daughter will 11 be graduating from college in Baltimore, MD, that day; and 12 WHEREAS, counsel for Defendant notified counsel for Plaintiff that it would be 13 available to participate in a hearing on May 29, 2014, if the Court elects to hold a hearing on 14 Plaintiff’s motions; and 15 WHEREAS, no Court-ordered deadlines will be altered by this extension: 16 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties pursuant to L.R. Civ. 17 7-7(b)(1) that the Hearing Date for Plaintiff’s Motions will be continued until May 29, 2014, to 18 the extent the Court wishes to hold a hearing on Plaintiff’s motions. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted, May 2, 2014 By /s/ Robert J. Goldman Robert J. Goldman (CSB# 189922) robert.goldman@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284 Tel: (650) 617-4000 Fax: (650) 617-4090 Christopher J. Harnett christopher.harnett@ropesgray.com Kevin J. Post kevin.post@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036-8704 Tel: (212) 596-9000 JOINT STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS Case No. 3:12-cv-01616-RS 1 Fax: (212) 596-9090 1 Attorneys for Defendant AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2 3 4 May 2, 2014 5 6 7 8 9 10 By /s/ Ben Lieb Robert R. Brunelli rbrunelli@sheridanross.com Benjamin B. Lieb blieb@sheridanross.com SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, Colorado 80202-5141 Tel: (303) 863-9700 Fax: (303) 863-0223 litigation@sheridanross.com Rodney B. Sorensen rbs@paynefears.com PAYNE & FEARS LLP Attorney at Law One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 398-7860 Fax: (415) 398-7863 11 12 13 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED 15 16 17 18 It is so ORDERED. 19 20 21 22 23 Dated: _______, 2014 5/6 Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Judge Northern District of California 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS Case No. 3:12-cv-01616-RS 2

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?