Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground, LLC et al
Filing
128
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Second Request) --JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE REVISED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE -- by Defendants David Allen, Democratic Underground, LLC. (Pulgram, Laurence)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAN FRANCISCO
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LAURENCE F. PULGRAM (CA State Bar No. 115163) (pro hac vice)
lpulgram@fenwick.com
CLIFFORD C. WEBB (CA State Bar No. 260885) (pro hac vice)
cwebb@fenwick.com
JENNIFER J. JOHNSON (CA State Bar No. 252897) (pro hac vice)
jjjohnson@fenwick.com
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone:
(415) 875-2300
Facsimile:
(415) 281-1350
KURT OPSAHL (CA State Bar No. 191303) (pro hac vice)
kurt@eff.org
CORYNNE MCSHERRY (CA State Bar No. 221504) (pro hac vice)
corynne@eff.org
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, California 94110
Telephone:
(415) 436-9333
Facsimile:
(415) 436-9993
CHAD BOWERS (NV State Bar No. 7283)
bowers@lawyer.com
CHAD A. BOWERS, LTD
3202 West Charleston Boulevard
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102
Telephone:
(702) 457-1001
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, and
Defendant DAVID ALLEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of
Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN,
an individual,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:10-01356-RLH (GWF)
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO
EXTEND TIME TO FILE
REVISED DISCOVERY
SCHEDULE
DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of
Columbia limited-liability company,
Counterclaimant,
(SECOND REQUEST)
v.
RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company,
and STEPHENS MEDIA LLC, a Nevada limited-liability
company,
Counterdefendants.
JOINT STIP AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND
TIME TO FILE REVISED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01356-RLH (GWF)
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN Counterclaimant Democratic Underground,
1
2
LLC (“Democratic Underground”) and Counterdefendant Stephens Media LLC
3
(“Counterdefendant”), through their attorneys of record, as follows:
1.
4
On February 24, 2011, this Court entered the Joint Stipulation and Order to Stay
5
Discovery Conducted Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 45 Until Adjudication
6
of Pending Motions (the “Stipulation and Order Staying Discovery”), which tolled discovery
7
deadlines set forth in the Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Docket “Dkt.” 54) “for the
8
duration of time from February 10 until ruling by the Court on the pending Motions for Voluntary
9
Dismissal, the Cross-MSJ, and the Motion to Dismiss” (collectively, “the Motions”). (Dkt. 71, ¶
10
11
15).
2.
Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Staying Discovery, “[w]ithin 10 days of such
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
ruling, the parties shall submit a proposed agreed order resetting discovery dates on an equivalent
13
schedule.” (Dkt. 71, ¶ 15).
14
3.
On June 14, 2011, the Court ruled on the Motions, dismissing Righthaven’s
15
complaint in its entirety for Righthaven’s lack of standing and denying Stephens Media’s Motion
16
to Dismiss. (Dkt. 116).
17
4.
Democratic Underground’s Counterclaim still survives.
18
5.
On June 23, 2011, Righthaven filed an Application to Intervene.
19
6.
On June 29, 2011, Stephens Media filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
20
21
22
23
denial of its Motion to Dismiss.
7.
Democratic Underground may seek a stipulation or leave to file an Amended
Counterclaim.
8.
The parties agree that it would be necessary and beneficial to determine who the
24
parties are and what claims are at issue prior to submitting a proposed agreed order resetting
25
discovery cutoff dates.
26
9.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request, and the parties have agreed, to
27
extend the deadline for them to submit a proposed agreed order resetting discovery dates to the
28
date within 10 days of the resolution of participation of parties and their pleadings in this action.
JOINT STIP AND [PROP] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO FILE REVISED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
1
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01356-RLH (GWF)
This is the second request related to the discovery plan. This stipulated extension is
1
2
sought in good faith and not for purposes of delay.
3
4
Dated this 30 day of June, 2011
5
6
FENWICK & WEST LLP
RIGHTHAVEN LLC
By:
By:
7
8
9
10
11
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
13
/s/ Laurence Pulgram
LAURENCE PULGRAM, ESQ
Laurence Pulgram, Esq.
Fenwick & West LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Attorneys for Defendants and
Counterclaimant DEMOCRATIC
UNDERGROUND, LLC, and Defendant
DAVID ALLEN
/s/ Shawn A. Mangano
SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ
Shawn A. Mangano, Esq.
Shawn A. Mangano, Ltd.
9960 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170
Las Vegas, Nevada 89129
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant
RIGHTHAVEN LLC
STEPHENS MEDIA LLC
14
15
By:
16
17
/s/ J. Colby Williams
J. COLBY WILLIAMS, ESQ
J. Colby Williams, Esq.
Campbell & Williams
700 South Seventh Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Attorneys for Counterdefendant
STEPHENS MEDIA LLC
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIP AND [PROP] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO FILE REVISED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
2
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01356-RLH (GWF)
1
ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
2
3
I hereby attest that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from
the signatory indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.
4
/s/ Laurence F. Pulgram
Laurence F. Pulgram
5
6
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED:
11
MOUNTAIN VIEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
F ENWICK & W EST LLP
12
Dated: ______________________
13
GEORGE W. FOLEY, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIP AND [PROP] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME
TO FILE REVISED DISCOVERY SCHEDULE
3
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01356-RLH (GWF)
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?