Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc.

Filing 122

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS MOTION TOCOMPEL Motions due by 8/10/2011. Opposition due by 8/17/2011. Signed by Judge James Ware on 8/3/11. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 08-05780 JW

Facebook, Inc.,

11

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
Power Ventures, Inc., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

/
On July 14, 2011, the Court transferred all discovery motions in this case from Magistrate

16

Judge Lloyd to Judge Ware. (See Docket Item No. 115.) In its July 14 Order, the Court stated that

17

any motions “in which briefing is complete are hereby taken under submission,” while noting that

18

the July 14 Order “does not apply to any motions which have been heard or taken under submission”

19

by Judge Lloyd. (See id.) In addition, the Court ordered the parties to file a Joint Statement

20

apprising the Court of any pending motions, and providing a brief review of the parties’ positions.

21

(Id.) Pursuant to the Court’s July 14 Order, on July 29, 2011 the parties filed a Joint Statement to

22

“summarize [a] discovery dispute that was taken under submission” by Judge Lloyd. (See Docket

23

Item No. 119 at 1.) In their Joint Statement, the parties contend that, pursuant to Judge Lloyd’s

24

standing orders, their prior submission to Judge Lloyd of a Discovery Dispute Joint Report “had the

25

same effect as the complete briefing by the parties of a Motion to Compel.”1 (Id.)

26
27
28

1

The parties further contend that “[s]hould the Court prefer that [their Discovery Dispute
Joint Report] be re-filed and briefed as a formal noticed Motion to Compel, the parties are prepared
to comply with such a request.” (Id.)

1

Contrary to the parties’ understanding, the Court has verified with Judge Lloyd that he

2

currently has no discovery motions under submission for consideration in this case. Accordingly, to

3

expedite the resolution of the outstanding discovery issues referred to in the parties’ Joint Statement,

4

the Court ORDERS as follows:

5

(1)

6
7

issues raised in the Joint Statement.
(2)

8
9

On or before August 17, 2011, Defendants shall file their Opposition to the Motion
to Compel.

(3)

No Reply shall be filed. Upon completion of the briefing, the Court will take the
matter under submission. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

On or before August 10, 2011, Plaintiff shall file a Motion to Compel addressing the

12
13

Dated: August 3, 2011
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Alan R Plutzik [e-mail]
Cindy Ann Cohn [e-mail]
David P. Chiappetta [e-mail]
Indra Neel Chatterjee [e-mail]
Joseph Perry Cutler [e-mail]
Lawrence Timothy Fisher [e-mail]
Monte M.F. Cooper [e-mail]
Morvarid Metanat [e-mail]
Sarah Nicole Westcot [e-mail]
Scott A. Bursor [e-mail]
Theresa Ann Sutton [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8

Dated: August 3, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy