Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 921

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 916 Motion to Continue Hearing. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING

9
10

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 916

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On October 18, 2016, the court issued a notice and order setting an October 31, 2016

13

hearing date for five discovery motions brought by Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. and the Almawave

14

Defendants. [Docket No. 912.] On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to

15

continue the hearing and for “other relief;” the Almawave Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion.

16

[Docket Nos. 916, 917.]

17

Plaintiff asks the court to continue the hearing to the first week of December 2016. In

18

support of this request, Plaintiff cites to pending obligations in this case, including two October

19

24, 2016 deadlines to address orders by the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam. These deadlines do

20

not support a continuation of a hearing that will take place a full week later. Plaintiff also refers to

21

an unspecified “deadline of the Ninth Circuit to respond to any submission that will be made by

22

the Defendants in response to the Court’s Order issued on October 20, 2016.” Plaintiff does not

23

explain this cryptic reference, nor is the court able to decipher it; the court notes that there were no

24

orders entered in this case on October 20, 2016.

25

Plaintiff next cites unspecified “pre-existing professional and personal obligations” during

26

the last week of October and through November 16, 2016. Although Plaintiff asserts that counsel

27

has “pre-existing . . . obligations” around the time of the hearing, Plaintiff does not explain what

28

the obligations are and how they impact the October 31, 2016 hearing date. If Plaintiff’s counsel

1

is unable to travel to California to appear at the hearing in person, Plaintiff’s counsel may submit a

2

request for permission to appear by telephone in accordance with the court’s Standing Order; such

3

requests require a demonstration of good cause. Plaintiff’s motion to continue the October 31,

4

2016 hearing is denied.

5

In addition to its request to continue the hearing, Plaintiff asks for “other relief,” including

6

clarification of the type of hearing that will take place on October 31, 2016. The court will hear

7

oral argument on the five fully briefed motions, and will not be conducting an evidentiary

8

proceeding. Plaintiff also asks the court for substantive information, including the basis for

9

sanctions sought by the Almawave Defendants. The court refers Plaintiff to the motions

10

To the extent that Plaintiff requests that any of these motions be heard by Judge Gilliam,

12

the request is denied. All discovery in this matter has been referred to the undersigned. [See

13

Docket No. 113.]

14
15
16

To the extent Plaintiff asks the court to defer its consideration of the motions, the court
declines to do so.
Finally, in their response to Plaintiff’s administrative motion, the Almawave Defendants

17

indicate that they oppose Plaintiff’s request for any continuance “beyond a few days,” but note

18

that one of their attorneys, Kimberly Culp, is not available on October 31, 2016. [Docket No.

19

917.] The court does not require Ms. Culp’s attendance at the hearing. However, defense counsel

20

shall be fully briefed on all five motions, and shall be prepared to answer the court’s questions

21

regarding Ms. Culp’s June 29, 2016 declaration related to Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Docket

22

No. 773-1), should such questions arise.

S

R NIA

FO

RT

27

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryua M. Ryu
onn
United dge DMagistrate Judge
JuStates

NO

26

Dated: October 24, 2016

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

H

ER

LI

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

28
2

A

24

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

23

UNIT
ED

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

themselves.

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C