TimesLines, Inc v. Facebook, Inc.
Filing
30
MOTION by Defendant Facebook, Inc., Plaintiff TimesLines, Inc to continue Initial Status Conference (Albritton, Douglas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMELINES, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.: 11 CV 6867
Jury Trial Demanded
AGREED MOTION TO MOVE INITIAL
STATUS DATE AND DATES FOR FRCP 26(f) CONFERENCE
The Parties jointly request that the Court reschedule the Initial Status Conference
(presently set in this matter for December 6, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.), to a date during the week of
either December 19, 2011 or December 26, 2011. In support of this motion, the Parties explain
as follows.
Basis for Agreed Motion
Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) agreed to waive formal service of the summons
and complaint, and accordingly its response to the Amended Complaint is due on or before
Tuesday, December 6, 2011. This presently is the same date as the Initial Status Conference.
By operation of Rule 26(f), the Parties were to confer as soon as practicable, but at least
21 days before the Initial Status Conference, to discuss the various matters set forth in FRCP
26(f) (including discovery matters), and to thereafter prepare a joint discovery plan.
Because Facebook’s response is not yet due, the Parties’ ability to complete the Rule
26(f) conference and plan is limited because, inter alia, Timelines has not been able to see
Facebook’s response to consider what discovery issues, if any, it might present.
Accordingly, the Parties respectfully submit that if the Court grants this motion and
moves the Initial Status Conference to a date during the third or fourth weeks of December, that
Facebook will still file its response when due (on or before December 6th), and the Parties will
thereafter hold a complete conference and present a joint discovery plan to the Court at the later
date (as well as have a better understanding of the issues that will be in dispute so as to be able to
best answer any questions that the Court might have at the first appearance).
WHEREFORE, the Parties jointly request that the Court reschedule the Initial Status
Conference (presently set in this matter for December 6, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.), to a date during the
week of either December 19, 2011 or December 26, 2011, and that the Parties be permitted to
hold the Rule 26(f) conference and submit a joint discovery plan on dates after December 6,
2011 (to be determined by the Court).
Dated: November 14, 2011
-2-
TIMELINES, INC.
By:
/s/ Douglas A. Albritton
One of its Attorneys
James T. Hultquist (#6204320)
Douglas Alan Albritton (#6228734)
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606-7507
(312) 207-1000
(312) 207-6400 (facsimile)
jhultquist@reedsmith.com
dalbritton@reedsmith.com
FACEBOOK, INC.
By:
One of its Attorneys
/s/ Thomas M. Monagan, III
Steven D. McCormick (#1824260)
Thomas M. Monagan, III (#6278060)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North Lasalle
Chicago, IL 60654-3406
Tel: (312) 862-2000
Fax: (312) 862-2200
Email: smccormick@kirkland.com
tmonagan@kirkland.com
/s/ Peter J. Willsey
Michael G. Rhodes (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Peter J. Willsey (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Anne H. Peck (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Jeffrey T. Norberg (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Gavin L. Charlston (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
COOLEY LLP
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Phone: (415) 693-2000
Fax: (415) 693-2222
Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com
pwillsey@cooley.com
peckah@cooley.com
jnorberg@cooley.com
gcharlston@cooley.com
-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that he served the foregoing Parties’
Agreed Motion to Reschedule the Initial Status Conference by means of the Court’s CM/ECF
System, which causes a true and correct copy of the same to be served electronically on all
CM/ECF registered counsel of record, on November 14, 2011.
/s/ Douglas A. Albritton
Douglas A. Albritton
-4-
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?