Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al

Filing 105

MOTION Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion For Continuance of the Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike filed by IAC Search & Media, Inc., Lycos Inc.. (Kash, Jennifer) (Filed on 4/29/2009)

Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al

Doc. 105

1 [SEE SIGNATURE BLOCK FOR COUNSEL] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION CASE NO. CV 08-03172-RMW PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, TRANSFER OR STAY AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE

11 GOOGLE INC., AOL LLC, YAHOO! INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and 12 LYCOS, INC., 13 14 v. Plaintiffs,

15 L. DANIEL EGGER, SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC, and 16 SITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. C-08-03172-RMW

Defendants.

Dockets.Justia.com

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, Plaintiffs respectfully submit this motion for

2 administrative relief to continue the briefing and hearing schedule for Defendants' Motion to 3 Dismiss, Transfer or Stay Under the First-To-File Rule, Under Rule 12(b)(2) For Lack of Personal 4 Jurisdiction, and Under Rule 12(b)(1) For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 42) 5 (hereinafter "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay") and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike 6 Site Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay (Dkt. No. 64) (hereinafter 7 "Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike"). Plaintiffs' motion is made on the ground that additional time is 8 necessary for Plaintiffs to obtain discovery that is highly relevant to the disposition of Defendants' 9 Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay. 10 1. On April 16, 2009, less than two weeks ago, the Court issued a tentative ruling

11 granting Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel discovery from Defendant Software Rights Archive, 12 LLC (Dkt. No. 72) (hereinafter "Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel"). 13 2. The following day, on April 17, 2009, counsel for the parties and non-parties

14 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Murray & Murray, P.C. appeared before the Court for a 15 hearing on (1) Yahoo!'s Motions to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas on Wilson Sonsini 16 Goodrich & Rosati and Murray & Murray, P.C.; (2) Defendant Software Rights Archive, LLC's 17 Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition; and (3) Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to 18 Compel. 19 3. As set forth in Plaintiffs' prior briefing, the discovery Plaintiffs seek from

20 Defendant Software Rights Archive, LLC in connection with Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel 21 is highly relevant to the preparation of Plaintiffs' brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion to 22 Dismiss, Transfer or Stay, which is currently due on Friday, May 1. As of the date of this motion, 23 the Court has not yet issued a final ruling on Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel. 24 4. Accordingly, in light of the above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the hearing

25 and briefing schedule for such motions be continued as follows: 26 27 28
51429/2905886.4

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. C-08-03172-RMW

1

1 Event 2 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion 3 to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay 4 Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike 5 6 7 Defendants' Reply in Support of Their 8 Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay 9 Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Strike 10 Hearing on (i) Defendants' Motion to 11 Dismiss, Transfer or Stay; and (ii) Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike 12 13 14 15 16

Old Deadline May 1, 2009

New Deadline 30 days after the entry of an Order granting Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel or 5 business days after the entry of an Order denying Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel 7 days after the filing of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or Stay 60 days after the entry of an Order granting Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel, or on the earliest date thereafter that is convenient for the Court 30 days after the entry of an Order denying Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel, or on the earliest date thereafter that is convenient for the Court

May 8, 2009

May 22, 2009

17 The above proposed schedule would ensure Plaintiffs have sufficient time to obtain any discovery 18 to which they are entitled before filing their brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 19 Transfer or Stay and would obviate the need for the parties to file supplemental briefing if 20 Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Compel is granted. The schedule for the briefing and hearing on 21 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is being proposed to be moved for the convenience of the parties and 22 the Court, since, as previously noted, it is scheduled to be heard with Defendants' Motion to 23 Dismiss, Transfer or Stay. 24 5. In accordance with Civil Local Rule 6-3(a), Plaintiffs believe the requested 25 continuance will not prejudice the parties nor significantly impact the case schedule. There have 26 been only four other schedule modifications in this case, all of which were agreed to by the 27 parties. (See Dkt. Nos. 20, 60, 78, 81.) Plaintiffs have attempted to obtain a stipulation from 28
51429/2905886.4

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. C-08-03172-RMW

2

1 Defendants regarding the proposed continuance, however, the parties were unable to reach an 2 agreement. (Declaration of Jennifer A. Kash In Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion for 3 Continuance of the Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Transfer or 4 Stay and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike ¶ 2.) 5 For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order

6 adopting the briefing and hearing schedule set forth above for (i) Defendants' Motion to Stay, 7 Transfer or Dismiss and (ii) Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
51429/2905886.4

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. C-08-03172-RMW

3

1 Dated: April 29, 2009 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
51429/2905886.4

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Thomas B. Walsh, IV Thomas B. Walsh, IV pro hac vice Texas Bar No. 00785173 E-mail: [e-mail] Fish & Richardson P.C. 1717 Main Street Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Juanita R. Brooks (CA Bar No. 75934) Jason W. Wolff (CA Bar No. 215819) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 858-678-5099 Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs GOOGLE INC. and AOL, LLC By: /s/ Richard. S.J. Hung Michael A. Jacobs (CA Bar No. 111664) Richard S.J. Hung (CA Bar No. 197425) MORRISON & FOERSTER 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-268-7522 Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff YAHOO! INC. By: /s/ Jennifer A. Kash Claude M. Stern (CA Bar No. 96737) Jennifer A. Kash (CA Bar No. 203679) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Email:[e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC. and LYCOS, INC.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. C-08-03172-RMW

4

1 2

DECLARATION OF CONSENT Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under

3 penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel 4 for all Plaintiffs. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
51429/2905886.4

/s/ Jennifer A. Kash Jennifer A. Kash

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF CASE NO. C-08-03172-RMW

5