IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

Filing 19

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES; AND TO RESET DATES RELATING TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. by IO Group, Inc.. (Sperlein, Dennis) (Filed on 9/21/2006)

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

Doc. 19

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL

Document 19

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 1 of 6

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

GILL SPERLEIN (172887) THE LAW FIRM OF GILL SPERLEIN 584 Castro Street, Suite 849 San Francisco, California 94114 Telephone: [phone] X32 Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] Attorney for Plaintiff IO GROUP, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. C-06-3926 (HRL) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES; AND TO RESET DATES RELATING TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.

IO GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, vs. VEOH NETWORKS, Inc, a California Corporation, Defendant.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. and Defendant Veoh Network, Inc., hereby stipulate that the Court will refrain from ruling as to whether or not Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh, Networks, Inc., C-06-3926 (HRL), Io Group, Inc. v. Data Conversions, Inc, C-06-065162 (HRL), and Io Group, Inc. v. Webnovas Technologies, Inc. and Gonetmarket, Inc, C-06-5334 (JSW) are related until after October 19, 2006 when the defendants in the other actions have had sufficient opportunity to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition. This stipulation will effect the date of the Case Management Conference and related deadlines, taking them off calendar until the Court has made its ruling as to whether or not the case are related.
-1STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER C-06-3926 (HRL)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL

Document 19

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 2 of 6

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

The extension of time is necessary to ensure that defendants have an opportunity to be heard on the issue relatedness and to ensure the efficient use of the Court's time. WHEREAS Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. filed a Notice of Related Cases in this matter on September 11, 2006, seeking to relate cases Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh, Networks, Inc., C-06-3926 (HRL), Io Group, Inc. v. Data Conversions, Inc, C-06-065162 (HRL), and Io Group, Inc. v. Webnovas Technologies, Inc. and Gonetmarket, Inc, C-06-5334 (JSW). WHEREAS under stipulation an answer or other response is not due from Webnovas Technologies, Inc and Gonetmarket, Inc until October 10, 2006 and from Data Conversions, Inc. until October 19, 2006. WHEREAS defendants Webnovas Technologies, Inc., Gonetmarket, Inc., and Data Conversions, Inc. should have an opportunity to respond to the Notice of Related Cases before this Court issues its order; and WHEREAS it would be an inefficient use of the time of the parties and the Court to prepare and hold the Case Management Conference until after the Court has ruled as to whether or not Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh, Networks, Inc., C-06-3926 (HRL), Io Group, Inc. v. Data Conversions, Inc, C-06-065162 (HRL), and Io Group, Inc. v. Webnovas Technologies, Inc. and Gonetmarket, Inc, C-06-5334 (JSW) are related. The parties do therefore stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The Court will rule whether or not Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh, Networks, Inc., C-06-

3926 (HRL), Io Group, Inc. v. Data Conversions, Inc, C-06-065162 (HRL), and Io Group, Inc. v. Webnovas Technologies, Inc. and Gonetmarket, Inc, C-06-5334 (JSW) are related after October 19, 2006 so that all defendants have sufficient time to file an opposition or notice of nonopposition.

-2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER C-06-3926 (HRL)

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL

Document 19

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 3 of 6

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

2.

The Case Management Conference currently calendared for October 10, 2006 will

be taken off calendar and re-calendared after the Court has ruled as to whether or not Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh, Networks, Inc., C-06-3926 (HRL), Io Group, Inc. v. Data Conversions, Inc, C-06065162 (HRL), and Io Group, Inc. v. Webnovas Technologies, Inc. and Gonetmarket, Inc, C-065334 (JSW) are related. 3. The related deadlines (Deadline for ADR Selection, Deadline to Meet and Confer

regarding Initial Disclosures and Deadline for filing Case Management Conference Statement) will be re-calendared once a date has been selected for the Case Management Conference.

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: September 21, 2006

/s/ Gill Sperlein Gill Sperlein (CA Bar Number 172887) THE LAW FIRM OF GILL SPERLEIN Attorney's for Plaintiff

Dated: September 21, 2006

/s/ Paul M. Fakler Paul M. Fakler (pro hoc vice) THELEN REID & PRIEST LLP Attorney's for Defendant

I hereby attest pursuant to Northern District of California General Order No. 45 that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.

Dated: September 21, 2006

/s/ Gill Sperlein GILL SPERLEIN, Counsel for Plaintiff Io Group, Inc.

-3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER C-06-3926 (HRL)

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL

Document 19

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 4 of 6

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: HONORABLE HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER C-06-3926 (HRL)

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL

Document 19

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 5 of 6

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I am over 18 years of age, am employed in the county of San Francisco, at 69 Converse Street, San Francisco, California, 94103. I am readily familiar with the practice of this office for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with United Parcel Service and correspondence is deposited with United Parcel Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. Today I served the attached: · STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES; AND TO RESET DATES RELATING TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. DECLARATION OF GILL SPERLEIN IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION

·

by causing a true and correct copy of the above to be placed with United Parcel Service, Second Day Service at San Francisco, California in sealed envelopes with postage prepaid, addressed as follows: In the case of Io Group, Inc. v. Webnovas Technologies, et al., C-06-5334 (JSW) Attorney's for Webnovas Technologies, Inc. and Gonetmarket, Inc. With Courtesy Copy to Judge Ware Richard F. Cauley Wang, Hartman, & Gibbs, PLC 1301 Dove Street, Suite 1050 New Port Beach , CA 92660-2812 In the case of Io Group, Inc. v. Data Conversions., C-06-5162 (HRL) Attorney for Data Conversions Inc. With Courtesy Copy to Judge Lloyd Lance Blundell, General Counsel Data Conversions, Inc. 5300 Old Pineville Road, Suite 158 Charlotte, NC 28217

-1-

Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL

Document 19

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 6 of 6

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

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 21, 2006. /s/ Eric Burford Eric Burford I hereby attest that this is the declaration of Eric Burford and the original with Eric Burford's holographic signature is on file for production for the Court if so ordered, or for inspection upon request by any party. Pursuant to the laws of the United States, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: September 21, 2006.

/s/ Gill Sperlein GILL SPERLEIN, Counsel for Plaintiff Io Group, Inc.

-2-