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

Filing 163

RESPONSE to re 161 Notice (Other) Regarding Submitted Matters: Fusion Garage's Renewed Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 93) by Fusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Stake, Sam) (Filed on 8/30/2010)

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

Doc. 163

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737) 2 [e-mail] Evette D. Pennypacker (Bar No. 203515) 3 [e-mail] 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th floor 4 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Joshua L. Sohn (Bar No. 250105) [e-mail] 7 Sam S. Stake (Bar No. 257916) [e-mail] 8 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 9 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 10 Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE Ltd. 11 12 13 14 15 16 INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH, a Delaware corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, 17 INC., a Delaware corporation, 18 19 vs. Plaintiffs, CASE NO. C 09-cv-5812 RS (PVT) FUSION GARAGE'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE REGARDING SUBMITTED MATTERS (FUSION GARAGE'S RENEWED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Dkt. No. 93)) [CIVIL L.R. 7-13] Hon. Patricia Trumbull UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

20 FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD., a Singapore company, 21 Defendant. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3649694.1

Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS (PVT) FUSION GARAGE'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE REGARDING SUBMITTED MATTERS Dockets.Justia.com

1

Plaintiffs' "Notice Regarding Submitted Matters" is inappropriate and contrary to Local

2 Rule 7-13. Plaintiffs argue that their Notice is appropriate ­ even though less than 120 days have 3 passed since Fusion Garage's Renewed Motion for Protective Order was submitted for decision ­ 4 because resolution of Fusion Garage's motion "has particular urgency." (Notice, 2.) However, 5 there is no such urgency. There has been no Rule 26(f) conference in this case, there is no cut-off 6 date for discovery or summary judgment motions, and there is no trial date. While it is true that 7 Plaintiffs have requested to depose certain Fusion Garage witnesses in October ­ and Fusion 8 Garage has agreed to present its witnesses at that time ­ nothing in the case schedule requires that 9 these depositions occur in October. Rather, the October "deadline" is an artificial deadline of 10 Plaintiffs' own making. Given that there is no cut-off date for discovery or summary judgment, 11 Plaintiffs could plainly notice these depositions for a later date if they so wished. In sum, there is 12 no "urgency" to a resolution of Fusion Garage's Renewed Motion for Protective Order, and it is 13 improper for Plaintiffs to file a premature "Notice Regarding Submitted Matters" which states, 14 without support, that such urgency exists. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3649694.1

DATED: August 30, 2010

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

By

/s/ Evette D. Pennypacker Evette D. Pennypacker Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE Ltd.

Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS -1FUSION GARAGE'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE REGARDING SUBMITTED MATTERS

1

I, Sam S. Stake, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file

2 this document. Pursuant to General Order 45.X.B., I hereby attest that Evette D. Pennypacker has 3 concurred in this filing. 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
04049.51632/3649649.1

/s/ Sam S. Stake Sam S. Stake

Case No. C 09-cv-5812 RS -2FUSION GARAGE'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE REGARDING SUBMITTED MATTERS