Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc. et al

Filing 105

FURTHER CASE SCHEDULING ORDER re 95 MOTION to set a date for the close of fact and expert discovery. Fact Discovery due by 9/30/2013. Expert Disclosures due by 11/8/2013. Expert Rebuttal due by 12/6/2013. Expert Discovery due by 1/7/2014. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 19, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

Case No. 12-cv-05331-JST

Plaintiff,
9
v.

FURTHER CASE SCHEDULING
ORDER

10
11

ACRONIS, INC., et al.,

Dkt. Nos. 95, 96, 99, 100, 101

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Set A Date For the Close of Fact and Expert

15

Discovery, ECF No. 95; Defendants’ Opposition thereto, ECF No. 96; Defendants’ Proposal Re

16

Fact and Expert Discovery Dates, ECF No. 99; Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Proposal, ECF

17

No. 100; and Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Response, ECF No. 101; and the court’s order dated

18

April 30, 2013, ECF No. 97, and good cause appearing, the court now sets the following

19
additional case deadlines:
20
21

Event

Deadline

22

Fact discovery cut-off

September 30, 2013

23

Expert disclosures

November 8, 2013

Expert rebuttal

December 6, 2013

Expert discovery cut-off

January 7, 2014
2013

24
25
26
27
28

Counsel may not modify these dates without leave of court. The parties shall comply with
the Court’s standing orders, which are available at cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders.

1

The parties must take all necessary steps to conduct discovery, compel discovery, hire

2

counsel, retain experts, and manage their calendars so that they can complete discovery in a timely

3

manner. All counsel must arrange their calendars to accommodate these dates, or arrange to

4

substitute or associate in counsel who can.

5

Requests for continuance are disfavored. The Court will not consider any event

6

subsequently scheduled by a party, party-controlled witness, expert or attorney that conflicts with

7

the above dates as good cause to grant a continuance. The Court will not consider the pendency of

8

settlement discussions as good cause to grant a continuance.

9

Dated: May 19, 2013

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

_______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2