Synthes (USA) v. Spinal Kinetics Inc.
Filing
561
STIPULATION AND ORDER 40 Granting a One Week Extension to Reply to Spinal Kinetics' Oppositions to Plaintiff's Post-Trial Motions. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 6/18/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2012)
1 [COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12 SYNTHES USA, LLC (f/k/a SYNTHES
(U.S.A.)),
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
SPINAL KINETICS, INC.,
16
Defendant.
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. C-09-01201-RMW (HRL)
STIPULATION AND []
ORDER GRANTING A ONE WEEK
EXTENSION TO REPLY TO SPINAL
KINETICS’ OPPOSITIONS TO
PLAINTIFF’S POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
Hearing Date:
Hearing Time:
Judge:
Courtroom:
July 13, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
6
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LA1 2467267v.1
Case No. C-09-01201-RMW
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER GRANTING
ONE WEEK EXTENSION FOR POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEFS
1
On May 21, 2012, Synthes filed three post-trial motions seeking relief pursuant to Fed. R.
2
Civ. P. 50(b) and 59. Dkts. 532-534. On June 4, 2012, Spinal Kinetics filed oppositions to all three
3
motions. Dkts. 536-538. Pursuant to L.R. 7-3(c), Synthes’ reply briefs are presently due on June 11,
4
2012.
5
In view of the volume of the briefing and the number of issues to be addressed, Synthes
6
believes that additional time for preparing reply briefs would be helpful and is warranted, and
7
requests a one week extension of the deadline for filing its reply briefs, until June 18, 2012. Spinal
8
Kinetics does not oppose Synthes’ request for a one week extension.
9
The hearing on Synthes’ post-trial motions is presently scheduled for July 13, 2012 (25 days
10
after the proposed deadline for Synthes’ reply briefs), and the parties agree that the requested
11
extension should not affect the hearing date.
12
13
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their
counsel, that with the Court’s permission:
15
1.
Synthes shall file its reply briefs in support of its post-trial motions by June 18, 2012.
16
2.
The July 13, 2012 hearing shall remain on calendar.
17
18
Agreed to and submitted by:
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
19
20
21
Dated: June 6, 2012
By:
22
23
24
/s/ Jeffrey M. Olson
Jeffrey M. Olson
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SYNTHES USA, LLC (f/k/a SYNTHES (U.S.A.))
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
25
26
Dated: June 6, 2012
27
28
Case No. C-09-01201-RMW
By:
/s/ Ehab M. Samuel
Ehab M. Samuel
Attorneys for Defendant
SPINAL KINETICS, INC.
1
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER GRANTING
ONE WEEK EXTENSION FOR POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEFS
1
2
3
4
5
6
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
JEFFREY M. OLSON (SBN 104074) jolson@sidley.com
PAUL H. MEIER (SBN 115999) pmeier@sidley.com
SAMUEL N. TIU (SBN 216291) stiu@sidley.com
MATTHEW S. JORGENSON (SBN 229131) mjorgenson@sidley.com
555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90013
(213) 896-6000 phone
(213) 896-6600 fax
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SYNTHES USA, LLC (f/k/a SYNTHES (U.S.A.))
7
8
9
10
11
12
James W. Geriak (State Bar No. 32871) geriakj@dicksteinshapiro.com
Allan W. Jansen (State Bar No. 81992) jansena@dicksteinshapiro.com
Charles A. Kertell (State Bar No. 181214) kertellc@dicksteinshapiro.com
Ehab M. Samuel (State Bar No. 228296) samuele@dicksteinshapiro.com
Mark Stirrat (State Bar No. 229448) stirratm@dicksteinshapiro.com
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, CA 92614-7200
Telephone: (310) 772-8300
Facsimile: (310) 772-8317
13
14
15
16
17
Robert W. Dickerson (State Bar No. 89367) dickersonr@dicksteinshapiro.com
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 772-8300
Facsimile: (310) 772-8317
Attorneys for Defendant
SPINAL KINETICS, INC.
18
19
20
21
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
Dated:
, 2012
Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
Case No. C-09-01201-RMW
2
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER GRANTING
ONE WEEK EXTENSION FOR POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEFS
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?