Codexis, Inc. v. EnzymeWorks, Inc. et al

Filing 176

ORDER TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE FOR CODEXIS'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 166 OMNIBUS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND TO VACATE THE DEADLINE FOR EXPERT REBUTTAL REPORTS - Reply in support of 166 MOTION to Compel due by 1/10/2018.Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 01/04/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2018)

1

7

DOUGLAS E. LUMISH (Bar No. 183863)
[e-mail]
GABRIEL S. GROSS (Bar No. 254672)
[e-mail]
PATRICIA YOUNG (Bar No. 291265)
[e-mail]
RAVI ANTANI (Bar No. 312613)
[e-mail]
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: +1.650.463.2600

8

Attorneys for Plaintiff CODEXIS, INC.

2
3
4
5
6

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13
14

CODEXIS, INC.

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17
18
19
20
21

ENZYMEWORKS, INC., a California
corporation, ENZYMEWORKS, INC., a
Chinese corporation a/k/a SUZHOU
HANMEI BIOTECHNOLOGY CO. LTD
d/b/a ENZYMEWORKS, INC. (CHINA),
JUNHUA TAO, an individual, and
ANDREW TAO, an individual

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-00826-WHO
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE THE DEADLINE FOR
CODEXIS’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
OMNIBUS MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 37 AND
COURT ORDERS (DKT. NO. 166) AND TO
VACATE THE DEADLINE FOR EXPERT
REBUTTAL REPORTS

Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VA LLE Y

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a), 6-1(b) and 6-2, Plaintiff Codexis, Inc. (“Codexis”),

2

and Defendants EnzymeWorks, Inc. (U.S.), EnzymeWorks, Inc. (China), Junhua Tao, and Andrew

3

Tao (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel, hereby agree and stipulate:

4

WHEREAS, the Court ordered the parties to file omnibus motions to compel discovery by

5

December 13, 2017, oppositions by December 27, 2017, and replies by January 3, 2018, and set

6

the hearing date for the motions for January 17, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. (see Dkt. Nos. 159, 160);

7
8

WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, Codexis filed its Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Rule 37 and Court Orders (“Motion”);

9
10

WHEREAS, on December 27, 2017, Defendants filed their Opposition to Codexis’s Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Rule 37 and Court Orders (“Opposition”);

11

WHEREAS, upon stipulation of the parties because of a scheduling conflict, the Court has

12

continued the hearing date for Codexis’s Motion from January 17, 2018 to January 24, 2018 (Dkt.

13

No. 173);

14

WHEREAS, the deadline for Codexis’s Reply In Support Of Its Omnibus Motion to Com-

15

pel Discovery Pursuant to Rule 37 and Court Orders (“Reply”) was originally set for January 3,

16

2018;

17

WHEREAS, on January 2, 2018, Codexis’s co-lead counsel with primary responsibility for

18

the Reply had an urgent family emergency requiring immediate attention arise, and Codexis’s as-

19

sociate with additional responsibility for the Reply also had an illness arise;

20
21
22
23
24
25

WHEREAS, the parties’ counsel have met and conferred and stipulated to extending the
deadline for Codexis’s Reply by one week;
WHEREAS, continuing the deadline for Codexis’s Reply by one week would still allow
two weeks between the Reply and the hearing date, as originally scheduled;
WHEREAS, the deadline for Rebuttal Expert Reports is January 19, 2018, and the Expert
Discovery Cutoff is February 16, 2018 (see Dkt. No. 157 at 11);

26

WHEREAS, the parties are in the process of negotiating a settlement, and the parties’ coun-

27

sel have met and conferred and stipulated to vacating the deadline for Rebuttal Expert Reports,

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VA LLE Y

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO

1

1

and to meeting and conferring as needed to agree upon a mutually suitable deadline if the case fails

2

to settle;

3

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AND STIPULATE to, and re-

4

quest a Court order, (1) continuing the deadline for Codexis’s Reply In Support of Its Omnibus

5

Motion to Compel by one week to January 10, 2018 pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-2,

6

and (2) vacating the deadline for Rebuttal Expert Reports pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(a) until

7

such later date as the parties agree upon.

8
9

Dated: January 3, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

10

By

11

/s/ Gabriel S. Gross
Gabriel S. Gross
Attorneys for Plaintiff CODEXIS, INC.

12
13
14

Dated: January 3, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
LILAW INC.

15
16

By

/s/ J. James Li
Attorneys for Defendants ENZYMEWORKS, INC. (U.S.), ENZYMEWORKS, INC.
(China), JUNHUA TAO, and ANDREW
TAO

17
18
19
20

ATTESTATION

21

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of

22
23
24
25

this document has been obtained from the other signatory, which shall serve in lieu of his signature.

Dated: January 3, 2018

26
By

/s/ Gabriel S. Gross
Gabriel S. Gross

27
28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VA LLE Y

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO

1
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The deadline for Codexis’s Re-

3

ply In Support Of Its Omnibus Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant to Rule 37 and Court Or-

4

ders (Dkt. No. 166) is hereby reset to January 10, 2018, and the deadline for Expert Rebuttal Re-

5

ports is hereby vacated, and the parties will meet and confer to reset it to a later date as needed.

6
7

January 4, 2018
Dated: ____________________
THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Court Judge

8
9

US-DOCS\98053414.1

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VA LLE Y

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00826-WHO