Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 108

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction Motion filed by CrunchPad, Inc., Interserve, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Scherb Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Scherb, Matthew) (Filed on 5/3/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5894

Andrew P. Bridges (SBN: 122761) [e-mail] David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530) [e-mail] Matthew A. Scherb (SBN: 237461) [e-mail] WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 39th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs INTERSERVE, INC., dba TECHCRUNCH and CRUNCHPAD, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Winston & Strawn LLP

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADMIN. MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE ENLARGED REPLY
SF:281130.1

INTERSERVE, INC., dba TECHCRUNCH, ) a Delaware corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, ) INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD., a Singapore ) company, ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

Case No. CV-09-5812 RS (PVT) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ENLARGED REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case No. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5894

Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 7-11, Plaintiffs seek leave to exceed the page limit for reply briefs by 5 pages, so it may file a 20 page reply brief. Plaintiffs filed an opening brief of only 16 pages without the benefit of any discovery. Plaintiffs had hoped that expedited discovery would be available before filing their motion, but when their discovery efforts were frustrated by delays they had to proceed despite the obstacles. Within the past two weeks, counsel have taken the depositions of the parties' principals and produced a large number of documents. It is essential that Plaintiffs have the opportunity adequately to integrate this new and highly relevant evidence in the reply. Plaintiffs' briefs on both the opening and the reply total 36 pages, still below the normal maximum of 40 pages, and Plaintiffs endeavored to trim the reply as much as possible in the time allowed, but 20 pages appear necessary to present the arguments adequately. Plaintiffs asked for Defendant's consent to this motion. Plaintiffs were willing to consent to two additional pages. Two additional pages would not have been sufficient. Respectfully submitted, Dated: May 3, 2010 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP By: /s/ Andrew P. Bridges David S. Bloch Matthew A. Scherb Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Winston & Strawn LLP

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

-1ADMIN. MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE ENLARGED REPLY
SF:281130.1

Case No. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT)