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)

Download PDF
Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD Doc. 163 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737) 2 claudestern@quinnemanuel.com Evette D. Pennypacker (Bar No. 203515) 3 evettepennypacker@quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th floor 4 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 5 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 Joshua L. Sohn (Bar No. 250105) joshuasohn@quinnemanuel.com 7 Sam S. Stake (Bar No. 257916) samstake@quinnemanuel.com 8 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 9 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 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

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?