Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce.com, Inc.

Filing 372

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND RESPONSIVE DEADLINES TO SALESFORCE'S MOTION REGARDING CORRECTED EXPERT REPORT (ECF 351 ) - granting ECF No. 365 Stipulation (First Request). Response due by 1/17/2023 and Reply due by 2/7/2023 as to ECF No. 351 Motion. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/10/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS)

Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-CLB Document 372 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Applications in Internet Time, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Salesforce, Inc.
Defendant.

Case No. 3:13-CV-00628-RCJ-CLB
ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATION TO EXTEND
RESPONSIVE DEADLINES TO
SALESFORCE’S MOTION
REGARDING CORRECTED
EXPERT REPORT (ECF 351)
(First Request)

Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-CLB Document 372 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 3

1

Pursuant to Local Rule IA 6-1, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record,

2

hereby stipulate and request that this Court extend the deadline for Plaintiff Applications in Internet

3

Time, LLC (“AIT”) to file its Opposition to Defendant Salesforce, Inc.’s (“Salesforce”) Motion

4

Regarding Corrected Expert Report (ECF 351, “Motion”) and for Salesforce to file its Reply after

5

service of the Opposition by two weeks. The Motion was filed on December 19, 2022. Under LR

6

7-2(b), the deadline to file and serve any points and authorities in response to the Motion is 14 days

7

after service of the Motion, or January 3, 2023 (January 2 being a federal holiday), and the deadline

8

to file and serve any reply is 7 days after service of the response, or January 10, 2023. The extension

9

will move the date for filing AIT’s Opposition to January 17, 2023 (January 16 also being a federal

10

holiday) and the date for filing Salesforce’s Reply to February 7, 2023. This is the first stipulation

11

for extension of time.

12

Reasons for Request for Extension: Under the current schedule, the 14-day briefing period

13

for AIT’s under LR 7-2(b) encompasses the Christmas and New Year holidays, making it difficult

14

for AIT to comply with the current deadline due to preexisting holiday plans. Moreover, once AIT’s

15

Opposition deadline is adjusted, Salesforce’s new Reply deadline conflicts with its counsel’s

16

previously scheduled trial in another case. The parties agree that additional time is warranted for

17

both the Opposition and the Reply to ensure that the issues addressed are adequately presented to

18

the Court.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case 3:13-cv-00628-RCJ-CLB Document 372 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 3

1
2

DATED: December 28, 2022

DATED: December 28, 2022

By: /s/ Andrea Pacelli
Michael A. Burke (NSB #11527)
ROBISON, SHARP, SULLIVAN &
BRUST

By: /s/ Ray Zado
John Frankovich, NV Bar #667
Leigh Goddard, NV Bar #6315
Philip Manelly, NV Bar #14236
McDonald Carano LLP

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Andrea Pacelli (pro hac vice)
Mark S. Raskin (pro hac vice)
Michael DeVincenzo (pro hac vice)
Charles Wizenfeld (pro hac vice)
Daniel Miller (pro hac vice)
KING & WOOD MALLESONS LLP
Steven C. Sereboff (pro hac vice)
SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP

Kevin Johnson (pro hac vice)
Ray Zado (pro hac vice)
Sam Stake (pro hac vice)
James Judah (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Defendant Salesforce, Inc.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Applications in Internet Time, LLC

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED:
DATED: _January 10, 2023

17
18
19

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3