Capital Group Communications, Inc. et al v. XeDAR Corp. et al

Filing 55

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Extend Briefing Deadlines Concerning 52 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (on Defendant XeDAR's Counterclaim) MOTION for Summary Judgment (on Plaintiffs' Claims). Responses due by 4/21/2014. Replies due by 4/25/2014. Motion Hearing set for 6/2/2014 02:00 PM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte on 4/14/2014. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2014)

1 DAVID P. NEMECEK, JR. (State Bar No. 194402)
[e-mail]
2 YUNJI WILLA QIAN (State Bar No. 271723)
[e-mail]
3 AIMINH T. NGUYEN (State Bar No. 206878)
[e-mail]
4 QIAN & NEMECEK LLP
135 Main Street, Ninth Floor
5 San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
[phone]
6 Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants CAPITAL GROUP
7 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and 100 PCT INC.
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 CAPITAL GROUP COMMUNICATIONS,
INC. and 100 PCT INC.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
vs.
14
XEDAR CORPORATION; HUGH H.
15 WILLIAMSON III; AND IHS, INC.,
16
17

Case No. 3:13-cv-01793-EDL
JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND BRIEFING
DEADLINES CONCERNING
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AND PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
DEFENDANT XEDAR’S
COUNTERCLAIM AS MODIFIED

Defendants.
Action Filed:
Trial Date:

April 19, 2013
August 11, 2014

18
19

Plaintiffs Capital Group Communications, Inc. and 100 PCT, Inc. and Defendants XeDAR

20 Corporation, Hugh Williamson III, IHS, Inc., and (collectively “the Parties”), jointly file this
21 Motion to extend the time for Plaintiffs to file their opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary
22 Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claims and Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant XeDAR’s
23 counterclaim (the “Motion”) to April 21, 2014 and to extend the time for Defendants to file their
24
reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to April 25, 2014.
25
1.
On February 20, 2014, the Parties engaged in a mediation hosted by the Ninth
26
Circuit Mediator. The Parties made substantial progress toward settlement at that mediation, but
27
28

3:13-cv-01793-EDL
JOINT MOTION FOR TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 this matter has not been resolved.
2
3
4

2.

The Parties planned their discovery with the possibility of settlement in mind.

Accordingly, the Parties did not schedule depositions prior to the February 20, 2014 mediation.
After the mediation, Plaintiffs noticed depositions for mid-March shortly before and on the date of

5
6
7

the fact discovery cut-off of March 11, 2014. Plaintiffs agreed to continue those depositions at the
request of counsel for Defendants because of scheduling conflicts and an upcoming trial in a

8 separate matter.
9

3.

The Parties then filed a joint motion to extend the fact discovery cut-off in this

10 matter to April 18, 2014, which this Court granted. Dkt. No. 49.
11

4.

Plaintiffs renoticed the depositions of Defendants XeDAR pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

12
P. 30(b)(6) and Hugh H. Williamson, III. In order to accommodate Mr. Williamson’s travel
13
14

schedule, the Parties have agreed that both of those depositions shall go forward on April 18,

15 2014, which is after the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their opposition to Defendants’ Motion.
16 Plaintiffs believe that Mr. Williamson is a critical witness whose testimony is needed in order to
17 oppose Defendants’ Motion.
18
19

5.

Plaintiffs therefore request an extension of time to April 21, 2014 to file their

opposition to Defendants Motion so that they may include excerpts of the deposition testimony of

20
XeDAR and Mr. Williamson in their opposition brief. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’
21
22
23

request.
6.

Defendants request an extension of time to file their reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition

24 to April 25, 2014. Defendants will endeavor to file their reply brief as soon as possible after
25 Plaintiffs file their opposition brief. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ request.
26
27
28

7.

The parties considered extending the time for the hearing on Defendants’ Motion

but were unable to do so because of scheduling conflicts and the upcoming settlement conference
3:13-cv-01793-EDL
2
JOINT MOTION FOR TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 for this matter, which is scheduled for June 3, 2014.
2
3
4

WHEREFORE, the parties jointly request that the Court grant the Plaintiffs an extension of
time to file their opposition to Defendants’ Motion to April 21, 2014 and grant Defendants an
extension of time to file their reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to April 25, 2014.

5
6
7

DATED: April 11, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
POLSINELLI LLP

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

By: s/ Philip W. Bledsoe__________
Philip W. Bledsoe (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
Bennett L. Cohen (Pro Hac Vice)
SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
Mark J. Kenney
Elena Kouvabina
Attorneys for Defendants
XeDAR Corporation, Hugh H. Williamson III,
and IHS Inc.
QIAN & NEMECEK LLP
By: s/ David P. Nemecek

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

DAVID P. NEMECEK, JR.
[e-mail]
YUNJI WILLA QIAN
AIMINH T. NGUYEN
135 Main Street, Ninth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Capital Group Communications, Inc. and 100 PCT Inc.
So Ordered, this 14th day of April, 2014. *The hearing on the Motion for Summary
Judgment is continued to June 2, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.

26
27
28

_____________________________________
The Hon. Elizabeth D. LaPorte
United States Magistrate Judge
3

3:13-cv-01793-EDL
JOINT MOTION FOR TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT/PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT