FreecycleSunnyvale v. The Freecycle Network

Filing 63

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME UNDER CIVIL L.R. 6-2 by FreecycleSunnyvale. (Corgill, Dennis) (Filed on 3/29/2007) Modified on 3/30/2007 (cp, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Case 4:06-cv-00324-CW Document 63 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ian N. Feinberg (SBN 88324) ifeinberg@mayerbrownrowe.com Dennis S. Corgill (SBN 103429) dcorgill@mayerbrownrowe.com Eric B. Evans (SBN 232476) eevans@mayerbrownrowe.com MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2000 Facsimile: (650) 331-2060 Attorneys for Plaintiff FREECYCLESUNNYVALE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION FREECYCLESUNNYVALE, a California unincorporated association, Plaintiff, v. THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, an Arizona corporation, Defendant. THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, INC., an Arizona Corporation, Counterclaimant, v. FREECYCLESUNNYVALE, a California unincorporated association, Counterdefendant. CASE NO. C06-00324 CW STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME UNDER CIVIL L.R. 6-2 Before: Honorable Claudia Wilken STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME CASE NO. C06-00324 CW Case 4:06-cv-00324-CW Document 63 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2, Plaintiff FreecycleSunnyvale and Defendant The Freecycle Network, Inc., respectfully request this Court to enter an order changing time. I. INTRODUCTION The above-captioned lawsuit concerns The Freecycle Network's claim of trademark rights over the term "freecycle," the phrase "The Freecycle Network," and a stylized logo depicting the term "freecycle." FreecycleSunnyvale seeks a declaration of non-infringement or, in the alternative, that the alleged trademarks are generic or that The Freecycle Network has engaged in naked licensing. The Freecycle Network filed counterclaims, alleging trademark infringement, contributory infringement, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, as well as California state-law claims for unfair competition. Counsel for both parties appear pro bono. This Court's Case Management Order presently sets the fact discovery cutoff for May 2, 2006. See Order (December 22, 2006; Document # 62). For the following reasons, FreecycleSunnyvale and The Freecycle Network respectfully request a ninety (90) day extension of the fact discovery cutoff and all other deadlines in the Case Management Order. II. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED ENLARGEMENT OF TIME First, the parties believe that additional time to conduct discovery is necessary in this case. In an effort to amicably resolve discovery disputes, the parties have met and conferred on several occasions, most recently on December 18, 2006. Many matters have been resolved amicably, and the parties will supplement their discovery. In addition, third party discovery is ongoing. Much of the additional discovery that will be forthcoming is preliminary to selecting deponents and scheduling depositions. Second, the parties continue to focus their efforts in an attempt to resolve their differences through mediation. Previously, in this Court, the parties participated in court-connected mediation on June 13, 2006, but were unable to settle the lawsuit or narrow the issues. A related case, which is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, was selected for inclusion in the Ninth Circuit's mediation program. That mediation started in January 2007, with the latest conference on March 28, 2007. The parties are attempting to reach a global settlement that will include the action before this Court. STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME CASE NO. C06-00324 CW Case 4:06-cv-00324-CW Document 63 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Third, assuming that fact discovery will be extended, the other deadlines in this Court's Case Management Order should be similarly extended by ninety (90) days. III. DISCLOSURE OF PREVIOUS TIME MODIFICATIONS The parties have previously sought orders modifying time in this case. On June 2, 2006, this Court entered an order extending time to complete court-connected mediation in the Northern District of California. See Order (June 2, 2006; Document # 35). On three subsequent occasions, this Court entered orders extending the fact discovery cutoff and related deadlines. See Order (August 1, 2006; Document #44); Order (October 3, 2006; Document #57); Order (December 22, 2006; Document # 62). IV. EFFECT OF THE TIME MODIFICATION ON THE SCHEDULE OF THE CASE The parties attach a proposed order that revises this Court's Case Management Order by extending the fact discovery cutoff and all other deadlines by approximately ninety (90) days. The following table summarizes the proposed changes to the Case Management Order and to the schedule of the case. Deadlines Current Cutoff Completion of Fact Discovery: 05/02/07 Disclosure of identities and reports of expert witnesses: Completion of Expert Discovery: Plaintiff to file dispositive motion(s) and notice for hearing on 11/29/07 at 2:00 p.m.: Defendant's opposition and any cross motion (contained in one brief): Plaintiff's reply/opposition: Surreply: 06/01/07 06/29/07 06/29/07 Proposed Cutoff 08/03/07 09/04/07 10/01/07 10/11/07 07/13/07 10/25/07 07/20/07 07/27/07 2 11/01/07 11/08/07 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME CASE NO. C06-00324 CW Case 4:06-cv-00324-CW Document 63 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Deadlines Further Case Management Conference at 2:00 p.m. and all case-dispositive motions to be heard on or before: Final Pretrial Conference at 1:30 p.m. on: A Trial will begin at 8:30 a.m. on: Current Cutoff 08/10/07 Proposed Cutoff 12/04/07 [to be set] [to be set] [to be set] [to be set] The parties' proposed order will not affect the ADR process in this Court. On June 13, 2006, the parties engaged in court-connected mediation, which was conducted by William N. Herbert, Esquire. That mediation was unsuccessful in settling the lawsuit or narrowing the issues to be litigated. The parties' proposed order will facilitate the ADR process in a related case before the Ninth Circuit, which may settle the lawsuit or narrow the issues to be litigated. 3 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME CASE NO. C06-00324 CW Case 4:06-cv-00324-CW Document 63 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request an order changing time that grants an approximately ninety (90) day extension of the fact discovery cutoff and all other deadlines in the Case Management Order. Dated: March 29, 2007 MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP IAN N. FEINBERG DENNIS S. CORGILL ERIC B. EVANS By: /s/ Dennis S. Corgill Attorneys for Plaintiff FREECYCLESUNNYVALE Dated: March 29, 2007 PERKINS COIE LLP PAUL J. ANDRE LISA KOBIALKA ESHA BANDYOPADHYAY SEAN M. BOYLE By: /s/ Lisa Kobialka Attorneys for Defendant THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, INC. Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), the filer hereby attests that the signatories' concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. 44033391.1 4 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME CASE NO. C06-00324 CW

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?