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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?