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

Filing 187

STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Granting Extension of Time Regarding Fusion Garage's Production of Redacted Source Code by Fusion Garage PTE. LTD. (Watson, Thomas) (Filed on 10/20/2010)

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

Doc. 187

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737) 2 [e-mail] Evette Pennypacker (Bar No. 203515) 3 [e-mail] Thomas R. Watson (Bar No. 227264) 4 [e-mail] 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th floor 5 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 7 Joshua L. Sohn (Bar No. 250105) 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 8 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 10 Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE Ltd. 11 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP Andrew P. Bridges (Bar No.: 122761) 12 [e-mail] David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530) 13 [e-mail] Matthew A. Scherb (Bar No. 237461) 14 [e-mail] WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 15 101 California Street, 39th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 16 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs TechCrunch, Inc., et al. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 20 TECHCRUNCH, INC. a Delaware CASE NO. 09-cv-5812 RS (PVT) 21 corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, INC., a Delaware corporation, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 22 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF Plaintiffs, TIME REGARDING FUSION GARAGE'S 23 PRODUCTION OF REDACTED SOURCE vs. CODE 24 FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD, a Singapore 25 company, 26 27 28
04049.51632/3735947.1

Defendant.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT)

Dockets.Justia.com

1

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2010, the Court ordered Fusion Garage to produce several

2 categories of documents including source code documents. (Dkt. 184) (hereinafter "Order"). The 3 Court allowed Fusion Garage to redact the actual JooJoo source code while leaving the source 4 code comments and metadata; 5 WHEREAS, the Court's Order established a deadline of October 22, 2010 for this

6 production; 7 WHEREAS, the responsive source code documents comprise 10,325 discrete documents

8 and 76,289 individual pages, virtually all of which require manual redactions for each page; 9 WHEREAS, Fusion Garage has been diligently redacting and processing these documents

10 for production, but will require roughly two weeks from the present date to finish this process, 11 given the volume of source code documents and the number of manual redactions at issue; 12 WHEREAS, Fusion Garage has prepared the other non-source code documents called for

13 by the Order for production and will produce these documents by October 22, 2010, and will also 14 respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 by October 22, 2010; 15 WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have meet and conferred concerning Fusion Garage's

16 source code redactions and the need for additional time to comply with the Court's Order; 17 WHEREAS, the following time modifications have been previously made in this case:

18 time to file a responsive pleading (Dkt. No. 16); motion to set the hearing dates on Fusion 19 Garage's motion to dismiss, to strike, and for a more definite statement ("motion to dismiss") and 20 Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to May, 6, 2010 (Dkt. No. 45); motion to shorten 21 time to hear Fusion Garage's motion to compel documents to support its opposition to Plaintiffs' 22 Motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 55); setting new hearing date on Plaintiffs' motion 23 for a preliminary injunction and defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 64); and granting extension 24 of time regarding briefing on Plaintiffs' motion to compel (Dkt. 178); 25 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree that Fusion Garage shall have a two-

26 week extension, until November 5, 2010, to produce its redacted source code documents to 27 Plaintiffs. The October 22, 2010 date for Fusion Garage to produce its non-source code 28
04049.51632/3735947.1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT)

1

1 documents and respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 set forth in the Court's October 6, 2 2010 Order shall remain unchanged. 3 4 IT IS SO STIPULATED. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

5 Dated: October 20, 2010 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DATED: October 20, 2010 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3735947.1

By /s/ Thomas R. Watson Thomas R. Watson Attorneys for Defendant Fusion Garage PTE., Ltd.

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

By /s/ Matthew A. Scherb Matthew A. Scherb Attorneys for Plaintiffs TechCrunch, Inc. and CrunchPad, Inc.

Pursuant to stipulation, it is SO ORDERED.

DATED: October ___, 2010

HON. PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT)

2

1 2

FILER'S ATTESTATION Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest that I

3 have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from Matthew A. Scherb, counsel for 4 Plaintiffs. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
04049.51632/3735947.1

DATED: October 20, 2010

By:

/s/ Thomas R. Watson Thomas R. Watson

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 09-CV-5812 RS (PVT)

3