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

Filing 176

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT DATES FOR EXPERT REPORTS by Google Inc.. (Andelman, Ethan) (Filed on 8/28/2006)

Download PDF
Google Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. Doc. 176 Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 176 Filed 08/28/2006 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 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 WEST WACKER DRIVE SUITE 2600 CHICAGO, IL 60606 Michael H. Page (#154913) Mark A. Lemley (#155830) Klaus H. Hamm (#224905) Ajay S. Krishnan (#222476) KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (4150 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant GOOGLE, INC. Robert N. Phillips (#120970) Ethan B. Andelman (#209101) HOWREY, LLP 525 Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 848-4900 Facsimile: (415) 848-4999 David A. Rammelt (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Susan J. Greenspon (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 857-7070 Facsimile: (312) 857-7095 Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a decoratetoday.com, Inc.; and DOES 1100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. C 03-5340-JF (RS) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING CASE MANAGEMENT DATES FOR EXPERT REPORTS CH01/PLATC/212324.1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 176 Filed 08/28/2006 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 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 WEST WACKER DRIVE SUITE 2600 CHICAGO, IL 60606 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Google Inc. ("Google") and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff American Blind and Wallpaper Factory Inc. ("American Blind'), pursuant to Civil Local Rules 62 and 7-12, hereby submit the following stipulation to amend the case management dates with regard to expert reports only and request that the Court enter an Order reflecting the same. The current expert report deadlines are as follows: Expert reports due: September 29, 2006. Rebuttal expert reports due: November 14, 2006. The parties seek to extend the above-referenced dates by three weeks because they have a settlement meeting scheduled in this matter on September 13, 2006. In the event that settlement is not achieved, the parties require additional time to complete their expert reports. The proposed expert report deadlines are as follows: Expert reports due: October 20, 2006. Rebuttal expert reports due: December 5, 2006. The trial date in this case has been extended twice before, and is now set for May 15, 2007. The proposed amendment to the case management dates only pertains to the expert report dates and will not require any additional dates to be extended, including the expert discovery cutoff date or the trial date. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter their stipulation for a three week extension of all expert report deadlines. CH01/PLATC/212324.1 -2- Case 5:03-cv-05340-JF Document 176 Filed 08/28/2006 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 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 WEST WACKER DRIVE SUITE 2600 CHICAGO, IL 60606 Dated: August 28, 2006 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP By: /s/ Michael H. Page MICHAEL H. PAGE Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant GOOGLE INC. Dated: August 28, 2006 HOWREY, LLP By: /s/ Ethan B. Andelman Ethan B. Andelman David A. Rammelt Susan J. Greenspon KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Attorneys for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff AMERICAN BLIND AND WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: ___________, 2006 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE CH01/PLATC/212324.1 -3-

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?