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)

Download PDF
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 aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com Cindy Ann Cohn cindy@eff.org David P. Chiappetta david.chiappetta@corrs.com.au Indra Neel Chatterjee nchatterjee@orrick.com Joseph Perry Cutler Jcutler@perkinscoie.com Lawrence Timothy Fisher ltfisher@bursor.com Monte M.F. Cooper mcooper@orrick.com Morvarid Metanat mmetanat@orrick.com Sarah Nicole Westcot swestcot@bursor.com Scott A. Bursor scott@bursor.com Theresa Ann Sutton tsutton@orrick.com 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

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?