AutoOpt Networks, Inc. v. Karani et al

Filing 93

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 92 Stipulation for Extension of the Close of Fact Discovery Deadline for Completion of Certain Depositions. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Robert E. Camors, Jr. (CA Bar No. 121204) bobcamors@camorslaw.com Law Offices Of Bob Camors 50 West San Fernando Street, Suite 1425 San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: 408-573-5744 Facsimile: 408-573-5743 Chris Kao (CA Bar No. 227086) ckao@kaollp.com Andrew Hamill (CA Bar No. 251156) ahamill@kaollp.com Whitney Miner (CA Bar No. 290825) wminer@kaollp.com KAO LLP One Post Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415-539-0996 Facsimile: 866-267-0243 Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant Gnanenthiran Jayanthan 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 AUTOOPT NETWORKS, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 4:17-cv-04714-HSG Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VIJAY KARANI, an individual; MOBILE TERRACE, INC., a California corporation; GNANENTHIRAN JAYANTHAN, an individual, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION THE CLOSE OF FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Defendants. WHEREAS, pursuant to this Court’s Schedule Order (Dkt. No. 34), the deadline for the close of fact and expert discovery is September 14, 2018; WHEREAS due to scheduling conflicts and the unavailability of witnesses and counsel, 26 additional time is needed to take or complete certain depositions. They are the deposition of 27 Defendant Gnanenthiran Jayanthan (“Jayanthan”), Plaintiff AutoOpt Networks, Inc. (“Autoopt”), 28 29 30 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 and non-parties Dipesh Shah (Autoopt’s principal) and Dayalini Kanagaratnam, Defendant 2 Jayanthan’s spouse; 3 WHEREAS counsel for Jayanthan noticed the depositions of Mr. Shah and AutoOpt for 4 August 28, 2018 but was unable to complete them on that date and the position of AutoOpt was 5 that the depositions could not continue until September 12, 2018 and WHEREAS a dispute 6 continues to exist between the Parties about whether or not the deposition of Mr. Shah or the 7 deposition of AutoOpt has been commenced by Defendant which is not resolved by this 8 stipulation; 9 WHEREAS counsel for AutoOpt had noticed the deposition of both Defendant Mr. 10 Jayanthan and Dayalini Kanagaratnam, Defendant Jayanthan’s spouse, for September 12, 2018 11 pursuant to agreement which is the same date proposed by AutoOpt for continuation of the Mr. 12 Shah and/or AutoOpt depositions. 13 WHEREAS the counsel for Defendant Mr. Jayanthan and counsel for Plaintiff AutoOpt 14 have met and conferred concerning the problem arising because of the timing issues described 15 above and agree that they cannot reasonably complete these depositions on September 12, 2018 16 or before the court-ordered discovery cutoff date of September 14, 2018, due to the above- 17 mentioned depositions being set on the same date and also due to a Califoria Superior Court trial 18 start date that is set for Defendant Jayanthan’s counsel on September 14, 2018 and related 19 pretrial actions needed on September 13, 2018; 20 WHEREAS counsel for AutoOpt has California Superior Court trial start date set on 21 September 24, 2018 which prevents these depositions from continuing until completion of that 22 trial estimated to last to mid-to late October 2018; 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS meet and confer has occurred between the undersigned counsel for the parties who have stipulated and agree to the following way to resolve the above situation: NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their respective attorneys of record, that in the interest of justice, the deadline for 27 28 29 30 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 completion of the depositions named above is extended to and including Friday, November 16, 2 2018. 3 4 No other court Deadline is changed by this STIPULATION which remain in effect as stated in the below table: 5 Event 6 Close of Fact and Expert Discovery except as 7 specified in this Order 8 Dispositive Motion Hearing Deadline November 15, 2018 9 Pretrial Conference February 5, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. 5-Day Jury Trial February 25, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. 10 Current Court Deadline September 14, 2018 11 12 The Parties agree that good cause exists for this extension because: 13 1. The parties believe that they will suffer prejudice if they are not permitted to complete the 14 15 16 depositions of the foregoing individuals and entity; and 2. No other deadlines will be affected by this stipulation. Dated: September 11, 2018 By: _/s/ Robert E. Camors, Jr. ___________ Robert E. Camors, Jr. (CA Bar No. 121204) bobcamors@camorslaw.com Law Offices Of Bob Camors 17 18 19 Chris Kao (CA Bar No. 227086) ckao@kaollp.com Andrew Hamill (CA Bar No. 251156) ahamill@kaollp.com Whitney Miner (CA Bar No. 290825) wminer@kaollp.com KAO LLP 20 21 22 23 24 Attorneys for Defendant and CounterClaimant Gnanenthiran Jayanthan 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 Dated: September 11, 2018 2 4 By: /s/ Paul J. Steiner Paul J. Steiner (CA Bar No. 41117) paul@sfpaulaw.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiff AutoOpt Networks, Inc. 3 6 7 8 [PROPOSED] ORDER 9 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing therefor, it is hereby 10 ORDERED that the deadline for completion of the depositions named above is extended to and 11 includes Friday, November 16, 2018. Except for those depositions, the Close of Fact Discovery 12 remains September 14, 2018. 13 14 15 16 This modification does not change any other existing scheduling deadline, including the pre-trial conference and trial dates. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September ___, 2018 12 17 ____________________ Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

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?