Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.
Filing
103
STIPULATION AND ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 2/17/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2010) Modified on 2/23/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).
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
TIMOTHY T. SCOTT (CA Bar No. 126971/tscott@kslaw.com) GEOFFREY M. EZGAR (CA Bar No. 184243/gezgar@kslaw.com) LEO SPOONER III (CA Bar No. 241541/lspooner@kslaw.com) KING & SPALDING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 590-0700 Facsimile: (650) 590-1900 SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (pro hac vice/sweingaertner@kslaw.com) ROBERT F. PERRY (rperry@kslaw.com) ALLISON ALTERSOHN (pro hac vice/aaltersohn@kslaw.com) SUSAN KIM (pro hac vice/skim@kslaw.com) MARK H. FRANCIS (pro hac vice/mfrancis@kslaw.com) DANIEL MILLER (pro hac vice/dmiller@kslaw.com) King & Spalding LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: (212) 556-2100 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 Attorneys for Defendant, GOOGLE INC. Adrian M. Pruetz (CA Bar No. 118215/ampruetz@pruetzlaw.com) Erica J. Pruetz (CA Bar No. 227712/ejpruetz@pruetzlaw.com) PRUETZ LAW GROUP LLP 200 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1525 El Segundo, California 90245 Telephone: 310.765.7650 Facsimile: 310.765.7641 Steven R. Hansen (CA Bar No. 198401/srh@ltlcounsel.com) Enoch H. Liang (CA Bar No. 212324/ehl@ltlcounsel.com) LEE, TRAN & LIANG APLC 601 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 4025 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: 213.612.3737 Facsimile: 213.612.3773 Attorneys for Plaintiff, NETLIST, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION NETLIST, INC., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. Case No. 09-05718 SBA
Related to: 08-04144 SBA STIPULATION AND ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
STIPULATION RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No. 09-05718 SBA
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
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2010 the Court issued an Order Denying Joint Motion to Consolidate, wherein the Court required the parties file a joint statement and proposed order specifying whether they preferred to have both Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 08-4144, and Netlist, Inc. v. Google Inc., Case No. 09-5718 ( "the Cases") referred to a Magistrate Judge for an early settlement conference or proceed before a private mediator; WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred on the issue; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT: 1. The parties elect to have the Cases referred to a Magistrate Judge for an early settlement conference; 2. While the parties are in agreement that such settlement conference should proceed before a Magistrate Judge, they have not yet reached agreement on the specific Magistrate Judge to handle such settlement conference. The parties intend to continue to meet and confer on this issue and will report back to the Court no later than Monday, February 22, 2010.
Dated: February 16, 2010
ADRIAN M. PRUETZ PRUETZ LAW GROUP LLP
By: /s/ Adrian M. Pruetz ADRIAN M. PRUETZ Attorneys for Plaintiff NETLIST, INC. Dated: February 16, 2010 KING & SPALDING LLP
By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Ezgar__________________ GEOFFREY M. EZGAR Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC.
2
STIPULATION RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No. 09-05718 SBA
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 Dated: February 16, 2010
DECLARATION OF CONSENT Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Adrian Pruetz.
KING & SPALDING LLP
By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Ezgar GEOFFREY M. EZGAR Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 17, 2010 Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge
3
STIPULATION RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Case No. 09-05718 SBA
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?