Oracle Amercia, Inc v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al
Filing
101
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Oracle's reply shall be due on 3/9/12. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 3/12/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Jerome A. Murphy (pro hac vice)
David D. Cross (pro hac vice)
Matthew J. McBurney (pro hac vice)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: 202-624-2500
Facsimile: 202-628-5116
E-mail: jmurphy@crowell.com
dcross@crowell.com
mmcburney@crowell.com
10
Suzanne E. Rode (CA Bar No. 253830)
CROWELL & MORING LLP
275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-986-2800
Facsimile: 415-986-2827
E-mail: srode@crowell.com
11
Counsel for Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.
8
9
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
OAKLAND DIVISION
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and
MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,
INC.,
Case No. 10-cv-04340 PJH
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO. 10-CV-04340 PJH
1
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2012, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) and
2
Defendants Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.’s (collectively,
3
“Micron”) filed a joint letter brief in connection with Micron’s motion to compel the production
4
of documents responsive to Micron’s Requests for Production No. 37 and 38 (“Requests”) (Dkt.
5
No. 87).
6
7
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2012, a telephonic hearing was held before this Court
regarding the motion;
8
9
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, this Court issued a Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 91)
(“Order”) requiring Oracle to submit a declaration setting forth the search it conducted in
10
connection with the Requests and permitting the parties to submit briefing regarding the
11
adequacy of Oracle’s search;
12
13
14
15
16
WHEREAS, Micron filed a brief contesting the adequacy of Oracle’s search on March 2,
2012;
WHEREAS, the Order sets March 7, 2012 as the deadline for Oracle to submit a reply to
Micron’s brief; and
WHEREAS, Oracle believes that additional time may allow the parties to resolve some
17
or all of the concerns raised in Micron’s brief without further need for intervention by this Court.
18
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that Oracle’s
19
reply shall be due on March 9, 2012.
20
21
IT IS SO STIPULATED
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO. 10-CV-04340 PJH
1
DATE: March 6, 2012
2
3
CROWELL & MORING LLP
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
7
/s/Matthew J. McBurney
Matthew J. McBurney
Crowell & Moring LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
/s/G. Charles Nierlich________________
G. Charles Nierlich
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
8
Counsel for Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.
Counsel for Defendants Micron Technology,
Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products,
Inc.
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ATTESTATION OF FILING
Pursuant to General Oder No. 45 § X(B), I hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence
in the filing of this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Briefing Schedule from all the
parties listed in the signature blocks above.
By: _/s/Matthew J. McBurney___________
Matthew J. McBurney
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO. 10-CV-04340 PJH
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
RT
ER
H
7
R NIA
Judge Jo
Spero
FO
seph C.
NO
12
DATE: March ____, 2012
LI
UNIT
ED
5
6
RT
U
O
4
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
A
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S
3
C
N
F
D IS T IC T O
_____________________________
R
Honorable Joseph Spero
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE
CASE NO. 10-CV-04340 PJH
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?