Google Inc. v. Creative Labs, Inc., et al

Filing 14

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 13 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Requesting Enlargement of Time to Respond to Complaint and Rescheduling the Case Management Conference Pursuant to L.R. 6-2 filed by Google Inc. Case Management Statement due by 9/21/2016. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/28/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 29, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Google Inc.
Jonathan Baker (CA State Bar No. 196062)
FARNEY DANIELS PC
411 Borel Avenue, Suite 350
San Mateo, California 94402
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Creative Labs, Inc.
and Creative Technology Ltd.

SILICON VALLEY

13
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

W HITE & C ASE LLP

12

BIJAL V. VAKIL (CA State Bar No. 192878)
[e-mail]
ALLEN WANG (CA State Bar No. 278953)
[e-mail]
WHITE & CASE LLP
3000 El Camino Real
Five Palo Alto Square, 9th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
17

GOOGLE INC.,

18
19
20
21
22

Case No. 3:16-cv-02628-JST
Plaintiff,

v.
CREATIVE LABS, INC. and
CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
Defendants.

STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
REQUESTING ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
COMPLAINT AND
RESCHEDULING THE CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
PURSUANT TO L.R. 6-2

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REQUESTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

CASE NO: 3:16-cv-02628-JST

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and

1
2

7-12, counsel for Google, Inc. (“Google”) and counsel for Creative Labs, Inc. and Creative

3

Technology Ltd. have met and conferred regarding an extension of time for the Creative entities

4

to respond to the Complaint.
Creative Labs, Inc. was served with the Summons and Complaint on June 9, 2016, with a

5
6

response originally due on June 30, 2016.
Creative Technology Ltd. is based in Singapore. As Singapore is not a signatory to the

7
8

Hague Service Convention, Singapore-based entities may be served only through Letters

9

Rogatory or private process service. For efficiency, to improve judicial economy, to give

response from both Creative Labs, Inc. and Creative Technology Ltd. due on the same date, and

13
SILICON VALLEY

Complaint, and to alleviate the burden of serving a foreign entity, the parties agree to have the

12
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Creative Technology Ltd. fair and adequate time to file its answer or otherwise respond to the

11

W HITE & C ASE LLP

10

have further agreed to a 75-day extension. Counsel for Creative has agreed to accept service for

14

Creative Technology Ltd. No party will be prejudiced by this extension.

15

The parties hereby jointly stipulate, agree, and request an order from the Court as follows:

16

1.

17

Creative Labs, Inc. and Creative Technology Ltd. shall have up to and including

September 13, 2016 to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.

18

2.

19

be rescheduled to

22

Dated:

June 29, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
By:

23
24

, 2016 shall

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

20
21

The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for August

/s/ Bijal V. Vakil
Bijal V. Vakil

Attorney for Plaintiff
Google Inc.

25
26
27
28
-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REQUESTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

CASE NO: 3:16-cv-02628-JST

By:

1
2

Attorney for Defendants
Creative Labs, Inc. and
Creative Technology Ltd.

3
4
5

/s/ Jonathan D. Baker
Jonathan D. Baker

ATTESTATION FOR SIGNATURE
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the

6

filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory.

7

Dated: June 29, 2016

8

/s/ Bijal V. Vakil
Bijal V. Vakil

9
10

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
June 29, 2016
Date: __________________
Hon. Jon S. Tigar, U.S.D.J.

SILICON VALLEY

13
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

W HITE & C ASE LLP

12

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REQUESTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

CASE NO: 3:16-cv-02628-JST