Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. et al

Filing 618

ORDER Granting 616 Motion to Extend Time to Reply re 608 Motion for Enhanced Damages and Attorney Fees. Replies due by 12/30/2016. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 12/7/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Thomas M. Melsheimer ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice) (TX #13922550)
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
Dallas, TX 75201
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Craig E. Countryman ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice) (CA #244601)
Juanita Brooks ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice) (CA #75934)
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Michael J. Kane ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice) (MN #247625)
William R. Woodford ([e-mail]) (admitted pro hac vice) (MN#322595)
John C. Adkisson (admitted pro hac vice) (MN #266358)
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
3200 RBC Plaza
60 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HALO ELECTRONICS, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

HALO ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PULSE ENGINEERING, INC., and
PULSE ELECTRONICS, CORP.,
Defendants.

2:07-cv-00331-APG (PAL)
UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR
EXTENTION OF TIME TO FILE

1

Plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc. respectively requests an extension of time to file its reply

2

brief in support of its Motion for Enhanced Damages and Attorney Fees. (D.I. 608.) After the

3

Status Conference on September 27, 2016, the Court issued minutes that set a December 16, 2016,

4

deadline for Halo’s brief. Halo seeks a two-week extension to December 30, 2016. Halo requests

5

this extension because Pulse’s opposition seeks to rely on evidence that is not in the record, namely

6

two opinions of counsel that had been maintained as privileged by Pulse throughout discovery and

7

trial. Halo agreed to the briefing schedule during the status conference based on Pulse’s

8

representations that the briefing would be focused on the record developed at trial.

9
10

Pulse does not oppose Halo’s request for an extension of time. This is the first request for
an extension of time for Halo’s reply brief on its Motion for Enhanced Damages and Attorney Fees.

11
12

Dated: December 6, 2016

13

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

14
15

By:/s/ William R. Woodford.
William R. Woodford (pro hac vice)
([e-mail])

16
17

Attorneys for Plaintiff
HALO ELECTRONICS, INC.

18
19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated: December 7

, 2016
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document has been served on December 6, 2016 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5005 (b)(2).

5
6
7
8
9
10

/s/ William R. Woodford
William R. Woodford
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HALO ELECTRONICS, INC.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3