Skyware, Inc v. Abramson et al

Filing 56

AMENDED ORDER re 50 SETTING HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO STAY DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTFFS COMPLAINT AND TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on July 5, 2011. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

SAN JOSE DIVISION
SKYWARE, INC.,

12
13

v.

Plaintiff,

NORMAN ABRAMSON, ET AL.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: C 11-00545 PSG
AMENDED ORDER SETTING
HEARING AND BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR MOTION TO STAY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND DENYING MOTION TO
CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTFF’S COMPLAINT
AND TO MODIFY BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

On July 1, 2011, Plaintiff Skyware, Inc. (“Skyware”) filed a motion to stay Defendants’

18
19

motion for partial summary judgment, to continue the hearing for Defendants’ motion to strike, and

20

to modify the briefing schedule for Defendants’ motion to strike.1 On July 5, 2011, Defendants

21

filed an opposition to these motions.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Skyware seeks to stay the motion for partial summary judgment to allow the parties to
complete the discovery necessary for Skyware to oppose the motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d). Skyware, however, has not noticed this motion for hearing as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Accordingly,
1

Although the court’s docket reflects that Docket No. 49 was docketed in error, out of an
abundance of caution, the court will address the arguments raised in that document as well as in
Docket No. 50. The court notes that Docket Nos. 49 and 50 have identical titles.
Case No.: 11-00545 PSG
ORDER

1

1
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Skyware’s 56(d) motion will be heard on July 26, 2011.
Skyware shall file any reply to Defendants’ opposition no later than July 12, 2011.

3

Skyware also moves to continue the hearing and modify the briefing schedule for

4

Defendants’ motion to strike. Skyware argues these changes are necessary because the motion

5

raises a large number of issues, its counsel and representatives had “various business conflicts” the

6
7
8
9

week of June 27-July 1 that prevented it from completing its opposition by the July 5th deadline,
and its counsel has “long been scheduled” to be on vacation the entire week of July 5-9. Absent
further explanation, these reasons do not constitute good cause to change the court’s schedule or to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

deny Defendants a speedy resolution to their motion. In particular, Skyware has provided no

11

explanation of what specific “business conflicts” prevented it from preparing its opposition earlier.

12

Furthermore, neither of these reasons explain Skyware’s failure to ask for relief from the briefing

13
14
15
16
17

schedule until the final business day before the opposition deadline. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Skyware’s motion to continue the hearing and to modify
the briefing schedule for Defendants’ motion to strike is DENIED.
Dated: July 5, 2011

18

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 11-00545 PSG
ORDER

2