The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, Inc et al
Filing
243
ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 242 Motion to Shorten Time. Pending a ruling on the MOTION to withdraw, counsel shall CONTINUE to make reasonable periodic efforts to contact Williams and to procure his cooperation in fulfilling his obligations in this litigation. (rssec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) Modified on 4/28/2008 (cv, COURT STAFF).
The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al
Doc. 243
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION *E-FILED 12/21/07*
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
FACEBOOK, INC., v. Plaintiff,
NO. C 07-01389 (RS) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR WITHDRAWAL MOTION
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CONNECTU LLC, et al., Defendants.
/
Counsel for defendant Winston Williams moves to shorten the time for briefing and hearing its motion to withdraw as his counsel. As a basis for hearing the motion on an expedited schedule, counsel asserts that it has lost all contact with Williams and therefore cannot assist him in responding to certain pending discovery requests or in providing the further responses the Court recently ordered him to provide.1 No obvious purpose would be served by hearing the motion to withdraw on shortened time.
Although that order nominally was directed at both Williams and Pacific Northwest Software ("PNS"), it was premised on the likelihood that further responsive information could be recovered from the computers of PNS, and not on any showing that Williams necessarily personally possessed additional responsive information, apart from whatever assistance he could provide PNS in searching its computers. 1
1
Dockets.Justia.com
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Whether or not counsel has withdrawn by any particular date, Williams' personal obligation to provide timely discovery responses and to comply with court orders will still exist. Accordingly, the motion for an order shortening time is denied. Pending a ruling on the motion to withdraw, counsel shall continue to make reasonable periodic efforts to contact Williams and to procure his cooperation in fulfilling his obligations in this litigation.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 21, 2007 RICHARD SEEBORG United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
C 07-01389 (RS)
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO: I. Neel Chatterjee Monte M.F. Cooper nchatterjee@orrick.com, kmudurian@orrick.com mcooper@orrick.com, adalton@orrick.com, shart@orrick.com cday@orrick.com, descamilla@orrick.com, mgirroir@orrick.com
Chester Wren-Ming Day Yvonne Penas Greer
ygreer@orrick.com, atatagiba@orrick.com, sstillman@orrick.com hopguy@orrick.com, adalton@orrick.com, msagmit@orrick.com
George Hopkins Guy , III
Scott Richard Mosko scott.mosko@finnegan.com, karen.reimer@finnegan.com, lissette.vazquez@finnegan.com, randal.holderfield@finnegan.com, rosanna.herrick@finnegan.com Theresa Ann Sutton tsutton@orrick.com, aako-nai@orrick.com, ygreer@orrick.com valerie.wagner@dechert.com
Valerie Margo Wagner
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 12/21/07 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Chambers
C 07-01389 (RS)
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?