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)

Download PDF
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?