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

Filing 221

STIPULATION Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Revised Scheduling Order by CrunchPad, Inc., Fusion Garage PTE. LTD, Interserve, Inc.. (Pennypacker, Evette) (Filed on 11/18/2011)

1

4

David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2
3

6
7
8
9

101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

Winston & Strawn LLP

10
11

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Claude M. Stern (Bar No. 96737)
[e-mail]
Evette Pennypacker (Bar No. 203515)
[e-mail]
Thomas R. Watson (Bar No. 227264)
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, Ca 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

12
Attorneys for Defendant
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17
TECHCRUNCH, INC., et al.
18
Plaintiffs,
19
vs.
20
FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD.,
21
Defendant.
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:09-cv-05812 RS (PSG)
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:09-cv-05812 RS (PSG)
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

Winston & Strawn LLP

10
11
12
13

WHEREAS, the parties engaged in private mediation on September 21, 2011, before JAMS
mediator John Bates in San Francisco, California;
WHEREAS, the parties in this action executed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding
final settlement of this case at the September 21, 2011 mediation;
WHEREAS, the parties sought a stay pending the execution of a definitive agreement, which
was granted by the Court on September 23, 2011 (Dkt. 216);
WHEREAS, the parties were unable to reach a final agreement regarding settlement despite
lengthy and good faith settlement negotiations (Dkt. 217, 219, 220);
WHEREAS, the parties have meet and conferred regarding all dates, deadlines, motions, and
other activities;
WHEREAS, the parties believe a one month continuance of the trial date is necessary to
complete the remaining discovery in this case;
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by the undersigned counsel on behalf of the

14

parties identified below pursuant to Local Rules 40-1 and 7-12 that, subject to Court approval, the

15

following dates shall apply:

16
17
18
19
20
21

Event
Plaintiffs’ Opposition To
Defendant’s Motion To
Compel
Defendant’s Reply In
Support Of The Motion To
Compel
Further CMC
Hearing On Defendant’s
Motion To Compel

Original Date
September 23, 2011

Proposed New Date
December 2, 2011

September 30, 2011

December 9, 2011

December 8, 2011
October 18, 2011

Plaintiffs’ Responses To
Defendant’s Requests for
Production (Set 4),
Interrogatories (Set 3), and
Requests for Admission (Set
1)

Various

No change
December 15, 2011
at 10:00 a.m. before
Magistrate Judge
Grewal [schedule
permitting]
December 16, 2011

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
04049.51632/4455130.2

Defendant’s Responses To
Plaintiffs’ Requests For
-1Case No. 3:09-cv-05812 RS (PSG)
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6

Event
Production (Set 8) and
Interrogatories (Set 4)
Fact Discovery Cutoff
Plaintiffs’ Expert
Disclosures and Reports
Defendant’s Expert
Disclosures and Reports
Expert Discovery Cutoff
Pretrial Motions

7
8
9

Pretrial Statements
Pretrial Conference
Trial

Original Date

Proposed New Date

October 17, 2011
November 10, 2011

February 24, 2012
March 9, 2012

December 1, 2011

March 23, 2012

January 19, 2012
February 23, 2012
(last date to hear)
May 3, 2012
May 17, 2012
May 29, 2012

April 6, 2012
March 29, 2012 (last
day to hear)
May 31, 2012
June 14, 2012
June 26, 2012
[schedule
permitting]

101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

Winston & Strawn LLP

10
11

Dated: November 18, 2011

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

12
13
14

/s/
David S. Bloch

15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16

By:

Dated: November 18, 2011

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

17
18
19

By:

/s/
Evette D. Pennypacker

20

Attorneys for Defendant

21
22

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

23
24

DATED: November ___, 2011

25
26
27

The Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Court Judge

28
04049.51632/4455130.2

-2Case No. 3:09-cv-05812 RS (PSG)
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2

ATTESTATION
I, Evette D. Pennypacker, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, that I

3

have obtained the concurrence to the filing of this document of each signatory hereto.

4

By:

5

/s/
Evette D. Pennypacker

6
7
8
9

101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

Winston & Strawn LLP

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
04049.51632/4455130.2

-3Case No. 3:09-cv-05812 RS (PSG)
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER