Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc
Filing
189
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 188 Stipulation Selecting Private ADR. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2018)
1
[COUNSEL OF RECORD IDENTIFIED IN SIGNATURE BLOCK]
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
8
9
10
11
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 4:16-cv-00119-HSG (KAW)
STIPULATION AND ORDER
SELECTING ADR PROCESS
[CIVIL LOCAL RULE 16-8]
DROPBOX, INC.,
Defendant.
Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS
CASE NO. 4:16-CV-00119-HSG (KAW)
1
Plaintiff Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., (“Synchronoss”) and Defendant Dropbox, Inc.,
2
(“Dropbox”) (collectively, the “Parties”) by and through their respective counsel report that they
3
have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following stipulation pursuant to
4
Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5. The parties agree to participate in the following ADR
5
process:
6
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
7
Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
8
Early Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge (ADR L.R. 7)
9
10
Private ADR (specify process and provider)
One-day private mediation with ADR provider JAMS.
11
12
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
13
14
15
the presumptive deadline (90 days from the date of the order referring the case
to ADR)
other requested deadline: July 31, 2018
16
17
18
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, BY
AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL.
19
20
Dated this 29th day of May, 2018.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
/s/ Jonathan A. Patchen
STEPHEN E. TAYLOR (SBN 058452)
JONATHAN A. PATCHEN (SBN 237346)
TAYLOR & PATCHEN, LLP
One Ferry Building, Suite 355
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 788-8200
Facsimile: (415) 788-8208
E-mail: staylor@taylorpatchen.com
E-mail: jpatchen@taylorpatchen.com
/s/ Sarah S. Eskandari
SARAH S. ESKANDARI (SBN 271541)
DENTONS US LLP
One Market Plaza,
Spear Tower, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 267-4000
Facsimile: (415) 267-4198
Email: sarah.eskandari@dentons.com
28
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS
CASE NO. 4:16-CV-00119-HSG (KAW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
MARK L. HOGGE (pro hac vic
ce)
SHAILE
ENDRA K. MAHESHW
WARI
(pro hac vice)
c
NICHO
OLAS H. JAC
CKSON (SB 269976)
BN
DENTO
ONS US LLP
P
1900 K Street, N.W
W.
Washington, DC 20
0006
one:
08-6400
Telepho (202) 40
Facsimi (202) 408-6399
ile:
Email: mark.hogge@
m
@dentons.co
om
Email: shailendra.m
s
maheshwari@
@dentons.com
m
Email: nicholas.jack
n
kson@dento
ons.com
THOM
MAS H.L. S
SELBY (pro hac vice)
DAVI M. KRIN
ID
NSKY (pro h vice)
hac
ADAM D. HARB
M
BER (pro ha vice)
ac
CHRI
ISTOPHER J. MANDER
RNACH (pr
ro
hac vi
ice)
WILL
LIAMS & CO
ONNOLLY LLP
Y
725 T
Twelfth Stree N.W.
et,
Wash
hington, D.C. 20005
Telep hone: (202) 434-5000
Facsim
mile: (202) 4
434-5029
E-mai tselby@w
il:
wc.com
E-mai dkrinsky@
il:
@wc.com
E-mai aharber@
il:
@wc.com
E-mai cmandern
il:
nach@wc.co
om
8
9
Attorney for Plaint
ys
tiff
Synchro
onoss Techno
ologies, Inc.
neys for Defe
fendant
Attorn
Dropb Inc.
box,
10
11
12
13
14
R’S
TATION:
FILER ATTEST
I, Sarah S. Eskandari, am the ECF user whose I and passw
E
a
u
ID
word are bei used to
ing
15
file the above STIP
e
PULATION AND [PRO
N
OPOSED] O
ORDER SE
ELECTING ADR
16
PROC
CESS [CIVIL LOCAL RULE 16-8] In compli
L
R
].
iance with C
Civil Local R 5-1(i)(3),
Rule
17
I hereb attest that each listed counsel abov has concu
by
c
ve
urred in this filing.
18
19
Dated: May 29, 20
018
By
20
/s Sarah S. E
s/
Eskandari
SA
ARAH S. ES
SKANDARI
I
21
22
23
ORDER
O
PURSUA
ANT TO ST
TIPULATIO IT IS SO ORDERE
ON,
ED.
24
25
26
27
DATED: May 30, 20
:
018
__________
__________
___________
_________
HONORAB
BLE HAYW
WOOD S. GIL
LLIAM JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
D
28
2
STIPULATIO AND ORD
ON
DER SELECT
TING ADR PR
ROCESS
CASE NO. 4:16
C
6-CV-00119-HS (KAW)
HSG
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?