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)

Download PDF
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?