Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

Filing 133

Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc.

Doc. 133

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 133

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GOOGLE INC., Counter-Defendant. v. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC., Counterclaimant, v. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC., et al., Defendants. GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff,

** E-filed on 6/23/06 **

NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case Number C 03-05340 JF (RS) ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES [re: docket no. 109]

American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. ("American Blind") moves to amend and extend the case management dates by ninety (90) days. Google Inc. ("Google") opposes the motion. The Court heard oral argument on June 23, 2006. Considering the fact that American Blind underwent a change of ownership and

C a s e No. C 03-05340 JF (RS) O R D E R GRANTING IN PART DEFENDAN T ' S MOTION TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (JFLC1)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 133

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

management between April, 2006 and June, 2006, the Court concludes that an extension of the case management dates is appropriate. See Declaration of Susan Greenspon in Support of American Blind & Wallpaper, Factory Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion to Amend and Extend Case Management Order Dates. However, considering, among other things, that the instant action was filed more than two and a half years ago and that American Blind has previously sought and received an extension of case management dates, the Court will amend and extend the case management dates by only sixty (60) days. As the Court indicated to counsel during oral argument, the extension of case management dates is intended only to allow the parties to complete discovery that is within the previously established scope of discovery. If during the remaining period of discovery a party believes that additional discovery is necessary, the parties should attempt resolve the matter between themselves. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, permission to conduct addit ional discovery shall be sought from Magistrate Judge Seeborg. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2006

JEREMY FOGEL Unit ed States District Judge

2
Case No. C 03-05340 JF (RS) O R D E R GRANTING IN PART DEFENDAN T ' S MOTION TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (JFLC1)

Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF

Document 133

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This Order has been served upon the following persons: Ethan B. Andelman Ravind Singh Grewal Klaus Hemingway Hamm Ajay Krishnan Michael H. Page Robert Nathan Phillips Stephen E. Taylor [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]; [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]; [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

Mark A. Lemley Kek er & Van Nest, LLP 710 Samsome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704

3
Case No. C 03-05340 JF (RS) O R D E R GRANTING IN PART DEFENDAN T ' S MOTION TO EXTEND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES (JFLC1)