Doe 1 et al v. Xytex Corporation et al

Filing 45

ORDER CONTINUING EVIDENTIARY HEARING, Motions terminated: 44 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Requesting a Continuance of Evidentiary Hearing filed by Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 1. Replies due by 11/3/2016. Responses due by 10/27/2016. Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/17/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/19/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

No. C 16-02935 WHA

Plaintiffs,
v.
XYTEX CORPORATION, a Georgia
Corporation, XYTEX CRYO
INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Georgia
Corporation, MARY HARTLEY, an
individual, J. TODD SPRADLIN, an
individual, and DOES 1–25, inclusive,

ORDER CONTINUING
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Defendants.

17

/

18
19

The parties have stipulated to continue the evidentiary hearing scheduled for September

20

28, due to plaintiff Jane Doe 2’s unavailability on that date due to her attendance at an out-of-

21

state conference pre-paid by her employer. Additionally, Xytex asks to be allowed to file

22

supplemental briefs following the hearing. Finally, Xytex asks to be allowed to use the Court’s

23

computer system and Internet access in order to display its website during the examination of

24

witnesses.

25

The evidentiary hearing is hereby CONTINUED to MONDAY, OCTOBER 17 AT 1:30 P.M.

26

The parties may each file supplemental briefs NOT TO EXCEED TEN PAGES by THURSDAY,

27

OCTOBER 27 AT NOON. They may likewise reply by THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3 AT NOON.

28

The foregoing proceedings shall not revisit the issues already decided in the prior order
on Xytex’s motion to transfer. That is, among other issues, neither the evidentiary hearing nor

1

the subsequent briefing shall be treated as opportunities to reargue whether Xytex’s website

2

gave reasonable notice of the site usage agreement. That argument has already been rejected

3

(Dkt. No. 27 at 7). The only issue is whether plaintiffs had actual notice of the agreement when

4

they used Xytex’s website in 2004, such that they can be charged with assent to its terms

5

(including the forum-selection clause).

6
7

Xytex should submit a proposed order identifying the specific equipment it wishes to
bring into the courtroom pursuant to General Order No. 58.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: September 19, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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