Phoenix Technologies Ltd. v. VMware, Inc.
Filing
465
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 464 Stipulation REGARDING FILING OF VMWARE'S AMENDED BILL OF COSTS & PHOENIX'S OBJECTIONS.; Amended Pleadings due by 9/8/2017; Objections due by 9/22/2017. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
MJacobs@mofo.com
ARTURO J. GONZÁLEZ (CA SBN 121490)
AGonzalez@mofo.com
ALEXIS A. AMEZCUA (CA SBN 247507)
AAmezcua@mofo.com
DIANA B. KRUZE (CA SBN 247605)
DKruze@mofo.com
CHRISTOPHER L. ROBINSON (CA SBN 260778)
ChristopherRobinson@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL A. ATTANASIO (151529)
(mattanasio@cooley.com)
WHITTY SOMVICHIAN (194463)
(wsomvichian@cooley.com)
AMANDA A. MAIN (260814)
(amain@cooley.com)
DREW KONING (263082)
(dkoning@cooley.com)
AARTI G. REDDY (274889)
(areddy@cooley.com)
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
VMWARE, INC.
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
OAKLAND DIVISION
14
15
16
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD., a
Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff,
17
18
19
v.
Defendant.
24
Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
VMWARE, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Counterclaimant,
22
23
STIPULATION REGARDING FILING
OF VMWARE’S AMENDED BILL OF
COSTS AND PHOENIX’S
OBJECTIONS THERETO
VMWARE, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
20
21
Case No. 15-cv-01414-HSG
v.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES LTD., a
Delaware Corporation,
25
Counterdefendant.
26
27
28
STIPULATION RE TIMING OF AMENDED BOC
CASE NO. 15-CV-01414-HSG
sf-3818925
1.
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiff Phoenix Technologies Ltd. and Defendant VMware,
2
Inc. (collectively, “the parties”) by and through their respective counsel, stipulate to the following
3
relating to VMware’s Bill of Costs:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 54-2(b), the parties have met and conferred regarding
4
5
VMware’s Bill of Costs, filed on August 17, 2017 (Dkt. 461); and
WHEREAS, in an effort to resolve disagreement about the taxable costs claimed in the bill,
6
7
VMware has agreed to withdraw its request for certain costs; and
WHEREAS, VMware and Phoenix disagree about certain remaining taxable costs and
8
9
Phoenix will object to those costs; and
WHEREAS, the current deadline for Phoenix to object to VMware’s Bill of Costs is August
10
11
31, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree it would be most efficient for VMware to file an amended bill
12
13
of costs and for Phoenix to file its objections thereafter.
14
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate to and request an extension of the Bill of
15
Costs schedule as follows: VMware has until Friday, September 8, 2017, to file an amended Bill of
16
Costs and Phoenix has until Friday, September 22, 2017, to file its objections.
17
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
18
///
19
///
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION RE TIMING OF AMENDED BOC
CASE NO. 15-CV-01414-HSG
sf-3818925
2.
1
Dated August 29 2017
d:
9,
MORR
RISON & FO
OERSTER L
LLP
2
By:
3
4
A
Attorneys fo Defendant
or
t
a Counter
and
rclaimant
V
VMWARE, INC.
5
6
7
/s/ Arturo J González1
J.
A
ARTURO J. GONZÁLE
.
EZ
Dated August 29 2017
d:
9,
COOL
LEY LLP
8
By:
9
10
/s/ Whitty S
Somvichian
W
Whitty Somv
vichian
A
Attorneys fo Plaintiff an Counterd
or
nd
defendant
P
PHOENIX T
TECHNOLO
OGIES LTD.
11
12
IT IS SO ORDE
S
ERED.
13
14
Dated August 30, 2017
d:
3
15
H
Honorable H
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
I, Arturo J. González, am the EC User who ID and p
o
CF
ose
password are being used to file this
e
Decla
aration. In compliance with Civil L. 5-1(i)(3) . I hereby at
c
w
.R.
ttest that Wh
hitty Somvichian has
concu
urred in this filing.
STIPUL
LATION RE TIM
MING OF AMEND
DED BOC
CASE NO. 15-CV-014
414-HSG
sf-3818925
3.
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?