Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE by Hon. William Alsup granting 33 Stipulation. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
FINJAN, INC,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 13-05808 WHA
Plaintiff,

v.

13

PROOFPOINT INC, et al.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

ORDER GRANTING JOINT
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEADLINES RELATED TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
STRIKE

In December 2013, this patent-infringement action was filed. In March 2013, plaintiff

17

moved to strike defendants’ second, third, fifth, eighth, ninth, and eleventh affirmative defenses,

18

noticed for April 10 (Dkt. No. 32). The parties have recently filed a joint stipulation proposing

19

that defendants respond to plaintiff’s motion by MARCH 24, plaintiff reply by MARCH 31, and

20

the hearing be continued to APRIL 24. The extension is requested to “provide additional time for

21

the parties to meet and confer regarding possible resolution . . . by amendment of Defendants’

22

answer” and because Attorney Jennifer A. Kash is “unavailable” on April 10. Mere unexplained

23

unavailability is insufficient. Nevertheless, since the parties state a good-faith interest in further

24

meeting and conferring to resolve their disputes, the joint stipulation is GRANTED (Kash

25

Decl. ¶ 2). The parties’ initial case management conference set for APRIL 3 remains on calendar.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 14, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE