PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 480

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #441 SEALED MOTION to Exclude Testimony and Opinions of Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne, #442 SEALED MOTION (Defendant Yahoo! Inc.'s Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiff's Expert Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne Regarding Infringement) SEALED MOTION (Defendant Yahoo! Inc.'s Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiff's Expert Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne Regarding Infringement) by PA Advisors, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wiley, Elizabeth)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-480-RRR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF NXN TECH, LLC'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DAUBERT MOTIONS FILED ON FEBRAURY 23, 2010 Plaintiff nXn Tech, LLC (f/k/a PA Advisors, LLC) ("nXn") respectfully files this Motion requesting a two-day extension of time ("Motion"), to which Defendants' Yahoo! Inc. (Yahoo) and Google Inc. ("Google") are unopposed. 1. The Motion seeks an extension of time, and modification of the Court's docket control order as follows: to allow nXn two extra days to file objections and responses to the Motions in Limine and Daubert motions of Yahoo and Google filed on February 23, 2010 (Dkt. Nos. 441 & 442) regarding excluding certain opinions of nXn's technical expert, Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne. 2. The current deadline for nXn's objections and responses is March 2, 2010. The new deadline would be Thursday March 4, 2010. 3. Good cause exists to modify this deadline and extend it for two days in light of the pre-trial conference held on March 1, 2010 in Washington, D.C., which included oral argument on all pending motions for summary judgment and selected motions in limine. In light of the time and resources required to prepare for the hearing in Washington, D.C., good cause exists to allow two extra days to allow a proper presentation of nXn's responses to the February 23, 2010 Daubert motions and objections of Yahoo and Google regarding nXn's technical expert, Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne. WHEREFORE, nXn respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief requested in this unopposed motion. A proposed order is attached. 2 Dated: March 2, 2010 Andrew W. Spangler SPANGLER LAW P.C. 208 N. Green Street, Suite 300 Longview, Texas 75601 (903) 753-9300 (903) 553-0403 (fax) David M. Pridham LAW OFFICE OF DAVID PRIDHAM 25 Linden Road Barrington, Rhode Island 02806 (401) 633-7247 (401) 633-7247 (fax) John M. Bustamante Texas Bar No. 24040618 BUSTAMANTE, P.C. 54 Rainey Street, No. 721 Austin, Texas 78701 Tel. 512.940.3753 Fax. 512.551.3773 Kip Glasscock Texas State Bar No. 08011000 KIP GLASSCOCK P.C. 550 Fannin, Suite 1350 Beaumont, TX 77701 Tel: (409) 833-8822 Fax: (409) 838-4666 Email: Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Elizabeth A. Wiley Elizabeth A. Wiley Texas State Bar No. 00788666 THE WILEY FIRM PC P.O. Box. 303280 Austin, Texas 78703-3280 Telephone: (512) 420.2387 Facsimile: (512) 551.0028 Email: Marc A. Fenster, CA Bar No. 181067 LEAD COUNSEL CA Bar No. 181067 Andrew Weiss CA Bar No. 232974 Adam Hoffman CA Bar No. 218740 RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 (fax) Patrick R. Anderson PATRICK R. ANDERSON PLLC 4225 Miller Rd, Bldg. B-9, Suite 358 Flint, MI 48507 (810) 275-0751 (248) 928-9239 (fax) 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served today with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. March 2, 2010 \s\ Elizabeth A. Wiley Elizabeth A. Wiley 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?