Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC et al
Filing
81
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 80 Stipulation TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(a)(1)(C). (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2022)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) (rhodesmg@cooley.com)
BEATRIZ MEJIA (190948) (mejiab@cooley.com)
ASHLEY K. CORKERY (301380) (acorkery@cooley.com)
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 9411-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
JOHN C. DWYER (136533) (dwyerjc@cooley.com)
3175 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
Telephone: (650) 843-5000
Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
DEEPTI BANSAL (1001754) (admitted pro hac vice) (dbansal@cooley.com)
ALEXANDER J. KASNER (310637) (akasner@cooley.com)
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004-2400
Telephone: (202) 842-7800
Facsimile: (202) 842 7899
Attorneys for Defendants
GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE IRELAND LTD.,
GOOGLE COMMERCE LTD., and GOOGLE ASIA
PACIFIC PTE. LTD.
15
16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
OAKLAND DIVISION
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case No. 4:21-cv-07250-HSG
UNLOCKD MEDIA, INC.
LIQUIDATION TRUST, by and
through its duly appointed trustee,
Peter S. Kaufman,
v.
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
DEADLINE TO EXCHANGE INITIAL
DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(a)(1)(C)
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE IRELAND
LIMITED; GOOGLE COMMERCE
LIMITED; and GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC
PTE. LIMITED,
Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Defendants.
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
1.
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO
EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES
(CASE NO. 4:21-CV-07250-HSG)
1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(C),
2
Plaintiff Unlockd Media, Inc. Liquidation Trust, by and through its duly appointed trustee, Peter S.
3
Kaufman (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce
4
Limited, and Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited (“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and
5
through their attorneys of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
6
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed this action on September 17, 2021 (ECF No. 1);
7
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
8
Complaint (ECF No. 60);
9
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation and this Court’s order, the Parties’ initial Case
10
Management Conference and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss are set to be heard on September 29,
11
2022 at 2:00 p.m. PT (ECF No. 71);
12
WHEREAS, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(C), parties are generally
13
required to exchange initial disclosures at or within 14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference
14
unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order;
15
WHEREAS, given the pending Motion to Dismiss, the Parties believe good cause exists to
16
extend the date for exchange of initial disclosures to twenty (20) days after this Court rules on
17
Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 60) if the Motion is denied; and if the Court grants
18
the Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend, until twenty (20) days after the filing of an answer or other
19
responsive pleading to the amended operative complaint;
WHEREAS, this stipulation is not made for any improper purpose and will not prejudice either
20
21
Party;
22
WHEREAS, this stipulation is not intended to operate as an admission of any factual allegation
23
or legal conclusion and is submitted subject to and without waiver of any rights, defenses, affirmative
24
defenses, or objections; and
25
WHEREAS, the requested modifications will not otherwise impact the schedule for the case.
26
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties that the
27
deadline for the Parties to exchange initial disclosures as required under Federal Rule of Civil
28
Procedure 26(a) is extended to twenty (20) days after this Court rules on Defendants’ pending Motion
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
2.
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO
EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES
(CASE NO. 4:21-CV-07250-HSG)
1
to Dismiss (ECF No. 60) if the Motion is denied; and if the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss with
2
leave to amend, until twenty (20) days after the filing of an answer or other responsive pleading to the
3
amended operative complaint.
4
5
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
6
7
Dated: September 19, 2022
COOLEY LLP
8
9
By: _/s/ Beatriz Mejia
Beatriz Mejia
10
11
_______________
Attorneys for Defendants
GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE IRELAND LTD.,
GOOGLE COMMERCE LTD., GOOGLE ASIA
PACIFIC PTE. LTD.
12
13
14
15
Dated: September 19, 2022
DIAMOND McCARTHY LLP
16
17
18
19
20
21
By: _/s/ Grace J. Pak
Grace J. Pak
_______________
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNLOCKD MEDIA, INC. LIQUIDATION TRUST,
by and through its duly appointed trustee, PETER S.
KAUFMAN
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
3.
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO
EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES
(CASE NO. 4:21-CV-07250-HSG)
ORDER
1
2
Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation and good cause having been shown, it is ordered that the
3
deadline for the Parties to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
4
Procedure 26(a) is extended to twenty (20) days after this Court rules on Defendants’ pending Motion
5
to Dismiss (ECF No. 60) if the Motion is denied; and if the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss with
6
leave to amend, until twenty (20) days after the filing of an answer or other responsive pleading to the
7
amended operative complaint.
8
9
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11
DATED: 9/20/2022
_______________________________
Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
4.
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO
EXCHANGE INITIAL DISCLOSURES
(CASE NO. 4:21-CV-07250-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?