Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 141

Memorandum in Opposition re 140 MOTION to Shorten Time to Hear 137 Motion for Modification of Order for Inspection and Sanctions MOTION to Shorten Time to Hear 137 Motion for Modification of Order for Inspection and Sanctions DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO VUITTON'S MOTION FOR SHORTENING OF TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER FOR INSPECTION AND SANCTIONS filed byAkanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc., Steven Chen. (Lowe, James) (Filed on 4/16/2009)

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

GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES David A. Gauntlett (SBN 96399) James A. Lowe (SBN 214383) Christopher Lai (SBN 249425) 18400 Von Karman, Suite 300 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc. and Steve Chen UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A., Plaintiff, vs. AKANOC SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: C 07-3952 JW (HRL) DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO VUITTON'S MOTION FOR SHORTENING OF TIME TO HEAR MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER FOR INSPECTION AND SANCTIONS

164784.1-10562-002-4/16/2009

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO VUITTON'S MOTION FOR SHORTENING OF TIME ­ C 07-3952 JW

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

Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc. and Steve Chen hereby oppose Plaintiff Louis Vuitton Malletier's Motion for Shortening of Time to Hear its Motion for Modification of Order for Inspection and Sanctions. Vuitton's Motion for Shortening of Time, requesting that the Court advance the hearing date on its Motion for Modification from May 26, 2009 to May 12, 2009, should be denied because (1) Defendants require sufficient time to properly oppose Vuitton's complicated and technical motion and (2) because Vuitton's Motion for Shortening of Time should be denied under Local Rules 7-2(a), 7-3(a) and 7-3(c). The Court should deny Vuitton's Motion for Shortening of Time so that Defendants have sufficient time to properly respond to Vuitton's Motion for Modification of Order. Vuitton's

Motion for Modification of Order, comprised of 54 pages, including attachments, makes a number of arguments and assertions about Defendants' computer systems and databases that require a detailed and technical response. Defendants have filed their Motion for Shortening of Time on April 16, 2009 and, if the Court grants Vuitton's motion, Local Rule 7-3(a) would require Defendants to file an opposition to Vuitton's Motion for Modification of Order on April 21, 2009, merely three business days later. This is not enough time to properly draft and file an opposition that requires detailed and technical arguments. Vuitton's Motion for Shortening of Time should be denied under Local Rule 7-2(a), that requires "all motions must be filed, served, and noticed in writing on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after service of the motion." (Emphasis added) Vuitton is requesting that the hearing on its Vuitton's Motion for Modification of Order be held on a date only 28 days after the date of filing, 7 days less than the minimum time required by Local Rule 7-2(a). In addition, Local Rule 7-3(a) requires that "any opposition to a motion must be served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date" and Local Rule 7-3(c) requires that "any reply to an opposition must be served and filed by the moving party not less than 14 days before the hearing date." (Emphasis added) The Court should deny Vuitton's Motion for Shortening of Time in accordance with the purpose of the Local Rules, which are designed to give parties reasonable time to draft and the Court sufficient opportunity to consider briefing.

164784.1-10562-002-4/16/2009

1

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO VUITTON'S MOTION FOR SHORTENING OF TIME ­ C 07-3952 JW

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 Dated:

The Court should therefore deny Vuitton's Motion for Shortening of Time because Defendants require sufficient time to properly oppose Vuitton's motion and because Local Rules 72(a), 7-3(a) and 7-3(c) establish deadlines for filing, opposing and replying on motions.

April 16, 2009

GAUNTLETT & ASSOCIATES

By:

s/James A. Lowe David A. Gauntlett James A. Lowe Christopher Lai

Attorneys for Defendants Akanoc Solutions, Inc., Managed Solutions Group, Inc., and Steve Chen

164784.1-10562-002-4/16/2009

2

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO VUITTON'S MOTION FOR SHORTENING OF TIME ­ C 07-3952 JW