Loop AI Labs, Inc. v. Gatti et al

Filing 943

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu re 940 Motion to Shorten Time.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LOOP AI LABS INC,

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

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS
FOR MODIFICATION OF COURT'S
ORDER AND TO SHORTEN TIME
Re: Dkt. Nos. 939, 940

12
13

On November 4, 2016, the court issued an order directing Defendants Almawave USA,

14

Inc. (“Almawave”), Almaviva S.p.A., and Almawave S.r.l. to submit certified English translations

15

of all Italian-language emails submitted for in camera review in connection with Defendant

16

Almawave’s motion for a protective order and/or to quash Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc.’s subpoena

17

to third party Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. [Docket No. 936.] The court ordered Defendants to

18

submit the translations within 14 days of the date of the order, which is November 18, 2016. On

19

November 8, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to modify the court’s November 4, 2016 order,

20

including a request to extend the compliance deadline. [Docket No. 939.] Defendants also moved

21

for an order shortening time and requested that Plaintiff be ordered to submit any response by

22

today, November 10, 2016. [Docket No. 940.] Under Civil Local Rule 7-11, Plaintiff’s response

23

is due by November 14, 2016.

24

The motion for an order shortening time is denied. Plaintiff’s response remains due on

25

November 14, 2016. In order to give Plaintiff a full opportunity to respond to Defendants’

26

motion, but also ease the press of the November 18, 2016 deadline caused by not shortening

27

Plaintiff’s response deadline, the court continues the November 18, 2016 deadline to submit

28

translations of Italian-language emails to November 21, 2016. The court will decide whether that

deadline should be extended further after it considers Plaintiff’s response to the motion.

2

S

RT

7

onn
Judge D
ER

H

8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

u
a M. Ry

NO

6

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

FO

Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

N

R NIA

ERED
O ORD
______________________________________
IT IS S

LI

5

Dated: November 10, 2016

UNIT
ED

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

3

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

A

1

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C