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)

Download PDF
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?