Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Filing 61

Declaration of Hollis Hire in Support of 60 MOTION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-3 TO POSTPONE HEARING ON 55 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES filed by GoDaddy.com, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 60 ) (Slafsky, John) (Filed on 8/30/2010) Modified on 8/31/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF).

JOHN L. SLAFSKY, State Bar No. 195513 DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452 HOLLIS BETH HIRE, State Bar No. 20365 1 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (650) 493-68 11 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]
8

Attorneys for Defendant GoDaddy.com, Inc.

9

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1
Petroliam Nasional Berhad, Plaintiff, VS. GoDaddy.corn, Inc., Defendant.
) ) ) ) )
) )

CASE NO.: 09-CV-5939 PJH DECLARATION OF HOLLIS HIRE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-3 TO POSTPONE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

) )

j

l9
ockets.Justia.com

2o
21

22

24
25
26
27

11 11 11 I1 11 I1 11

I, Hollis Beth Hire, declare: 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice law before this Court, and am an associate at

D

the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., counsel for Defendant GoDaddy.com, Inc. ("Go Daddy"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration.
2.

I have attached as Exhibit A a true and correct copy of an e-mail message sent to

Perry Clark, counsel for Plaintiff Petroliam Nasional Berhad ("Plaintiff') at 8:35 a.m. on August 30,2010. The message requested consent for postponement of the hearing date for the Motion to Strike. I did not receive any response to this message. 3. Pwsuant to Local Rule 6-3, I declare the following:

11

HIRE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH

The schedule modifications in this case include:

o On two occasions, the parties stipulated to an extension of time to respond
to the Complaint, for a total of 60 days.
o The parties also stipulated to continue the second Case Management

Conference in this case by one week to accommodate a personal scheduling conflict of Mr. Clark, counsel for Plaintiff. Go Daddy seeks the enlargement of time to avoid unnecessary expense in responding to Plaintiffs Motion to Strike, filed 167 days following the Answer and while a Dispositive Motion is pending. If Go Daddy's Dispositive Motion is granted, then the parties (and the Court) would have devoted resources to the belated Motion to Strike unnecessarily, as the decision on Dispositive Motion may render the Motion to Strike moot. If Go Daddy's request for an Order Finding Plaintiff Liable for Attorneys' Fees is granted, such mitigation of expense would be to the benefit of Plaintiff as well. The proposed time modification would not alter the schedule for the case, as no schedule has been set.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Palo

HIRE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO POSTPONE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH