Oracle America, Inc. v. Innovative Technology Distributors, LLC

Filing 96

ORDER re (94 in 5:11-cv-01043-LHK) Stipulation Extending Due Date for Discovery Opposition Letter Brief. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 11/21/11. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2011)

Download PDF
Case5:11-cv-01043-LHK Document94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MERYL MACKLIN (CA State Bar No. 115053) meryl.macklin@hro.com HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2994 Telephone: (415) 268-2000 Facsimile: (415) 268-1999 Filed11/14/11 Page1 of 3 ROBERT S. FRIEDMAN (pro hac vice) SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 653-8700 Facsimile: (212) 653-8701 JEFFREY S. ROSS (CA State Bar No. 138172) ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 500 Oracle Parkway, 7th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 506-5200 Facsimile: (650) 506-7114 Attorneys for Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ORACLE AMERICA, INC. Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 5:11-CV-01043-LHK STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF DUE DATE FOR REPLY BRIEF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY DISTRIBUTORS LLC Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF DUE DATE FOR REPLY BRIEF Oracle America, Inc. v. Innovative Technology Distributors LLC Case No. 5:11-CV-01043-LHK Case5:11-cv-01043-LHK Document94 1 Filed11/14/11 Page2 of 3 WHEREAS the Case Management Order entered on July 21, 2011 provides that each party 2 may submit a three-page letter brief to the Court if the parties are unable to resolve a discovery 3 dispute; 4 5 6 7 WHEREAS the Case Management Order does not specify a due date for submitting a reply letter brief after an opening letter brief has been filed; WHEREAS the Court’s Clerk advised on November 14, 2011, that reply letter briefs are due five days after receipt of an opening brief; 8 WHEREAS Innovative Technology Distributors LLC (“ITD”) filed a letter brief on 9 November 9, 2011, raising certain issues in connection with the entry of a discovery confidentiality 10 11 12 13 14 15 order in this case; WHEREAS Oracle intends to file a reply brief in opposition to ITD’s letter brief dated November 9, 2011, and is seeking a short extension of time for its reply; WHEREAS ITD has agreed to give Oracle a short extension of time for its reply brief, up to and including November 18, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE, through their respective 16 counsel, that Oracle’s reply brief in opposition to ITD’s letter brief dated November 9, 2011, shall be 17 due no later than November 18, 2011. 18 19 Dated: November 14, 2011 HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 20 By: /s/ Meryl Macklin Meryl Macklin Attorneys for Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Dated: November 14, 2011 GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP By: /s/ Valerie M. Wagner Valerie M. Wagner Attorneys for Defendant Innovative Technology Distributors LLC. 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF DUE DATE FOR REPLY BRIEF Oracle America, Inc. v. Innovative Technology Distributors LLC Case No. 5:11-CV-01043-LHK Case5:11-cv-01043-LHK Document94 1 2 3 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 21 Dated: November ___, 2011 ______________________________________ The Honorable Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 Filed11/14/11 Page3 of 3 GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION I, Meryl Macklin, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, that concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. 8 /s/ Meryl Macklin Meryl Macklin Attorneys for Oracle America, Inc. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF DUE DATE FOR REPLY BRIEF Oracle America, Inc. v. Innovative Technology Distributors LLC Case No. 5:11-CV-01043-LHK

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?