Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al
Filing
516
Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Staples, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Richardson, Michael)
Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al
Doc. 516
IN TI{E T]NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED,
)
)
Civil ActionNo. 6:09-cv-446
Hon. Leonard E. Davis JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff,
V.
)
)
)
) ) )
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC. ET
AL.
Defendants l
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF'TIME FOR STAPLES,INC. TO COMPLETE CERTAIN DISCOYERY
Defendant Staples, Inc. ("Staples") respectfully moves the Court to extend Staples' deadline for rolling document production from December 7 ,2010 (Dkt. No.
201 0 and the deadline to produce a
5 13)
to January
5I
7,
privilege log from December 7 , 2010 (Dkt. No.
3) to
January 14,2010. Before the December 7,2010 deadline, counsel for Staples alerted counsel for Plaintiff
Eolas Technologies, Inc. ("Eolas") that logistical challenges would prevent a complete production
by that date. Specifically, as a result of Eolas' Amended Infringement Contentions against
Staples, Staples has been required to search for and produce additional documents beyond what was originally required. Staples has also encountered unforeseen delays in its collection
of
electronic documents, due in part to the implementation of a new e-discovery application. Staples
has already produced documents to Eolas, including what
it currently believes to be the bulk of its
responsive documents, and
will
continue to produce documents on a rolling basis. The parties
have conferred and agreed that Staples' deadline for the completion of document production
should be extended to January 7,2010 and its deadline for the production of a privilege log should
Dockets.Justia.com
be extended to January 14,2010. As such, this motion is unopposed.
This motion is not made for delay and should not affect any other deadlines applicable to
this litigation. Accordingly, Staples respectfully requests that the Court grant this unopposed Motion and
extend the specified document production and privilege log deadlines to January 7,2010 and
January I 4, 20 I 0, respectively.
Date: December7,2010
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael E. Richardson Michael E. Richardson, TX Bar No. 24002838 BECK REDDEN & SECREST 1221 McKinney, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (7 13) 951 -6284 Facsimile: (7 13) 951 -3720 mri chards o n@b rs firm. co m
Mark G. Matuschak, admitted pro hac vice Donald R. Steinberg, admitted pro hac vice WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 mark. matuschak@wilmerhale. com donald. steinberg@wilmerhale. com Kate Hutchins, admittedpro hac vice V/ILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 kate.hutchins@wilmerhale. com
Daniel V. Williams, admitted pro hac vice WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663 -6000 Facsimile : (202) 663 -63 63 daniel. williams@wilmerhale. com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT STAPLES,INC.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I, Meaghan Davant, counsel for Staples, Inc. certi$ that I conferred with Matt Rappaport, counsel for Eolas, on this 7th day of December 2010, by telephone at approximately 5:00 p.m. (EDT). Mr. Rappaport confirmed that Eolas does not oppose this motion.
,ffi
CERTIF'ICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this UNOPPOSED MOTION OF' STAPLES INC. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE CERTAIN DISCOVERY via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(aX3) on this the 7th day December 2010. /s/ Michael E. Richardson Michael E. Richardson
of
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?