Specht et al v. Google Inc et al

Filing 264

MINUTE entry before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber:For the reasons stated in open Court, Google's Motion to Exclude Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37 (C)(1) Due to Plaintiffs' Untimely Document Product and Interrogatory Responses 261 is continued. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their response to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to 10/8/2010. Google's reply brief deadline remains 10/26/2010. Mailed notice (wp, )

Specht et al v. Google Inc et al
Order Form (01/2005)

Doc. 264

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

Harry D. Leinenweber 09 C 2572

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER CASE TITLE
D O C K E T ENTRY TEXT

DATE Specht vs. Google Inc.

9/30/2010

For reasons stated in open Court, Google's Motion to Exclude Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(C)(1) Due to Plaintiffs' Untimely Document Production and Interrogatory Responses [261] is continued. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their response to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to 10/8/2010. Google's reply brief deadline remains 10/26/2010.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT If Plaintiffs, in their response brief to Google's Motion for Summary Judgment, rely upon or use any of the discovery to which Google moved to exclude, Plaintiffs are ordered to include this material in severable, clearly identified sections in their brief. In addition, if Plaintiffs include this material in the brief, Plaintiffs are ordered to offer an argument in a supplement to the summary judgment brief as to why the Court should consider this material in making its ruling on summary judgment. The Court will rule on Google's Motion to Exclude after considering Plaintiffs' argument in this supplement, as well as any response that Google may make to this argument in its reply brief.

0 9 C 2 5 7 2 Specht vs. Google Inc.

P a g e 1 of 1

Dockets.Justia.com