Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al

Filing 30

Joint MOTION for extension of time of the deadlines set forth in the Court's Initial Order Regarding Planning and Scheduling by Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company LP. (Seitz, Adam)

Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al

Doc. 30

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 30

Filed 12/15/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THEGLOBE.COM, INC., ) VOICEGLO HOLDINGS, INC., ) VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP., ) VONAGE AMERICA, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

Case No. 05-2433-JWL-DJW

STIPULATED MOTION FOR A TWO WEEK EXTENSION OF THE DATES SET FORTH IN THE COURT'S INITIAL ORDER REGARDING PLANNING AND SCHEDULING Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request a two (2) week extension of the dates set forth in the Court's Initial Order Regarding Planning and Scheduling as detailed below. In support of this motion, the parties state as follows: 1. This Court's Order schedules a telephonic Rule 26(f) conference for

January 4, 2006 at 2:00p. The Order mandates the parties conduct a planning conference by December 21, 2005 and submit a report of the results of that planning conference to this Court by December 28, 2005. 2. Numerous conflicting scheduling issues will preclude the completion of a

planning conference by December 21, 2005 and will preclude the submission of a report of the planning conference by December 28, 2005.

1834551v1

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 30

Filed 12/15/2005

Page 2 of 4

3.

The parties respectfully request that each of the Court's deadlines be

extended for two (2) weeks, as follows: Parties' planning conference: To be completed by January 4, 2006. Report on planning conference: To be submitted by January 11, 2006. Telephonic Rule 26 (f) conference: January 18, 2006, at a time convenient to the Court. 4. purposes or to delay. 5. There is no prejudice to any party as a result of this request. This is a joint motion of all parties and is not being sought for vexatious

WHEREFORE, for good cause shown, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court grant this motion and extend the deadlines set forth in the Initial Order Regarding Planning and Scheduling. Dated: December 15, 2005 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Adam P. Seitz Adam P. Seitz Eric A. Buresh SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2613 816-474-6550 Telephone [phone] Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. /s/ Scott C. Nehrbass James D. Oliver Scott C. Nehrbass Foulston Siefkin LLP
1834551v1

2

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 30

Filed 12/15/2005

Page 3 of 4

40 Corporate Woods Suite 1050 9401 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, Kansas 66210 James W. Dabney Henry C. Lebowitz Malcolm J. Duncan Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP One New York Plaza New York, New York 10004 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS theglobe.com and VOICEGLO HOLDINGS, Inc. /s/ Patrick J. Kaine Don R. Lolli Patrick J. Kaine Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle P.C. 4420 Madison Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64111 Patrick D. McPherson Patrick C. Muldoon Barry Golob Duane Morris LLP 1667 K. Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1608 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP. and VONAGE AMERICA, INC.

1834551v1

3

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 30

Filed 12/15/2005

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 15th day of December, 2005, a copy of the above and foregoing JOINT MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT'S INITIAL ORDER REGARDING PLANNING AND SCHEDULING was e-filed with the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification to all parties entitled to notice.

__/s/ Adam P. Seitz__________ Attorney for Plaintiff

1834551v1

4