TechShop, Inc. v. Rasure et al
Filing
171
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 170 Stipulation to Modify Briefing Schedule and Hearing on Non-Party Witnesses Motion to Modify Defendants Subpoena.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2019)
Case 4:18-cv-01044-HSG Document 171 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ALLAN E. ANDERSON (SBN 133672)
TRACY LUU-VARNES (SBN 281165)
ARENT FOX LLP
555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065
Telephone: 213.629.7400
Facsimile: 213.629.7401
Email:
allan.anderson@arentfox.com
tracy.luu-varnes@arentfox.com
Attorneys for Non-Parties
DANIEL WOODS and MIKE HILBERMAN
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
10
11
12
13
TECHSHOP, INC. a California
corporation, DORIS A. KAELIN, in
her capacity as Chapter 7 trustee for
TECHOP, INC.
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
v.
DAN RASURE, an individual residing
in Kansas, TECHSHOP 2.0 LLC, a
Kansas limited liability corporation,
TECHSHOP 2.0 SAN FRANCISCO
LLC, a Kansas limited liability
corporation,
19
Defendants.
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01044-HSG
STIPULATION TO MODIFY
BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND
HEARING ON NON-PARTY
WITNESSES MOTION TO
MODIFY DEFENDANTS’
SUBPOENA TO LIMIT SCOPE
OF TESTIMONY AT TRIAL, OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER AND ORDER
[Declaration of Tracy Luu-Varnes in
support of filed and lodged
concurrently herewith and in support
hereof]
20
21
22
Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01044-HSG (JCS)
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOS ANGELES
AFDOCS/17986225.2
Case 4:18-cv-01044-HSG Document 171 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 6
1
2
3
Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, counsel for the parties and non-party witnesses
Mike Hilberman and Daniel Woods (the “Parties”) hereby stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2019, non-party witnesses Mike Hilberman and
4
Daniel Woods filed their Motion to Modify Defendants’ Subpoena to Limit Scope
5
of Testimony at Trial, or in the Alternative, A Motion for Productive Order (ECF
6
No. 159) (“Motion”), which, based on the Court’s rules, availability and scheduling
7
notes, is currently set to be heard on August 22, 2019;
8
9
10
WHEREAS, trial on this matter is currently scheduled to begin on June 3,
2019, over three months before the Motion will be heard;
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to the following revised briefing
11
schedule and hearing date to allow the Motion to be heard prior to the
12
commencement June 3, 2019 trial:
13
14
Hearing on Motion
May 23, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or another
15
date prior to May 30, 2019 in advance
16
of the June 3, 2019 trial that is
17
convenient with the Court
18
Deadline to file Opposition
May 10, 2019
19
Deadline to file Reply
May 16, 2019
20
21
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the
22
Parties, through their respective counsel and subject to the Court’s approval, that
23
the hearing on the Motion will take place on May 23, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or another
24
date prior to May 30, 2019 in advance of the June 3, 2019 trial that is convenient
25
with the Court, and the briefing schedule for the Motion will be as follows:
26
- the Opposition, if any, will be filed on or before May 10, 2019; and
27
- the Reply, if any, will be filed on or before May 16, 2019.
28
-2-
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01044-HSG (JCS)
LOS ANGELES
AFDOCS/17986225.2
Case 4:18-cv-01044-HSG Document 171 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 6
1
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Respectfully submitted,
2
3
4
5
Dated:
May 2, 2019
ARENT FOX LLP
6
By: /s/ Tracy Luu-Varnes
ALLAN E. ANDERSON
TRACY LUU-VARNES
Attorneys for Non-Party Witnesses
Daniel Woods and Mike Hilberman
7
8
9
10
11
Dated:
May 2, 2019
PARRISH LAW OFFICE
12
13
By: /s/ James Charles Pistonino
James Charles Pistorino
Parrish Law Office
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01044-HSG (JCS)
LOS ANGELES
AFDOCS/17986225.2
Case 4:18-cv-01044-HSG Document 171 Filed 05/03/19 Page 4 of 6
1
Dated:
May 2, 2019
2
By: /s/ Andrea Pallios Roberts
Ann McFarland Draper
courts@draperlaw.net
Draper Law Offices
75 Broadway, Suite 202
San Francisco, Ca 94111
Telephone: (415) 989-5620
3
4
5
6
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
Kevin P.B. Johnson
kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
Andrea Pallios Roberts
andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
7
8
9
10
11
Ed Franco
eddfranco@quinnemanuel.com
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
12
13
14
John E. Nathan (Pro Hac Vice)
jnathan155@yahoo.com
John E. Nathan LLC
New York, NY 10128
Telephone: (917) 960-1667
15
16
17
18
Attorneys for Defendants and
Counterclaimants
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01044-HSG (JCS)
LOS ANGELES
AFDOCS/17986225.2
Case 4:18-cv-01044-HSG Document 171 Filed 05/03/19 Page 5 of 6
1
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1
2
I, Tracy Luu-Varnes, hereby declare pursuant to Civil Local Rules 5-1(i)(3), I
have obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from
each of the above signatories.
3
4
5
Executed this 2nd day of May, 2019, in Los Angeles, California.
6
7
8
By: /s/ Tracy Luu-Varnes
TRACY LUU-VARNES
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01044-HSG (JCS)
LOS ANGELES
AFDOCS/17986225.2
Case 4:18-cv-01044-HSG Document 171 Filed 05/03/19 Page 6 of 6
1
ORDER
2
3
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
7
Dated: May 3, 2019 _________
___
8
9
JUDGE HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM,JR.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
STIPULATION; PROPOSED ORDER
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01044-HSG (JCS)
LOS ANGELES
AFDOCS/17986225.2
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?