Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


January 4, 2010

LANDMARK SCREENS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP; AND THOMAS D. KOHLER, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Hon. Jeremy Fogel

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE Courtroom 3 Comp. Filed: May 21, 2008 Trial Date: None set

This stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiff Landmark Screens, LLC ("Landmark") and Defendants Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP ("MLB") and Thomas D. Kohler ("Kohler"), pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, as follows:

WHEREAS, on November 30, 2005, Landmark filed a complaint for legal malpractice and other claims against MLB, Kohler and Pennie & Edmonds LLP in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1-05-CV-053568 (the "State Court Action");

WHEREAS, on or around March 2008, Landmark entered into a settlement with Pennie & Edmonds and Thomas Kohler (in his capacity as a Pennie partner), and continued to prosecute the State Court Action against MLB and Kohler (in his capacity as an MLB partner);

WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, the Superior Court sustained MLB and Kohler's Demurrer to Landmark's state court complaint without leave to amend, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Landmark's claims required resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law;

WHEREAS, thereafter, Landmark filed a notice of appeal (the "State Court Appeal");

WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, Landmark filed this federal action based on federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338;

WHEREAS, on November 3, 2008, Landmark filed its Second Amended Complaint in this action [Docket No. 31];

WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the Court issued an order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Landmark's Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 42];

WHEREAS, on May 15, 2009, the parties participated in a Case Management Conference during which the Court heard MLB and Kohler's proposal to stay fact discovery pending resolution of the State Court Appeal;

WHEREAS during the May 15, 2009 Case Management conference, the court set a January 30, 2010 fact discovery cut-off and scheduled a Further Case Management Conference for February 5, 2010;

WHEREAS, on September 1, 2009, MLB filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Compel In Camera Review of Documents [Docket No. 62], and the motion was granted in part and denied in part on October 21, 2009 [Docket No. 81] Court issued its ruling on those objections on December 15, 2009 [Docket No. 94];

WHEREAS, pursuant to Magistrate Lloyd's in camera review, Landmark was ordered to produce certain documents by December 22, 2009 [Docket No. 95];

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, Landmark filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents Withheld as Privileged [Docket No. 85], and a hearing on that motion is set for

WHEREAS, on December 17, 2009, the Court of Appeal for the State of California January 19, 2010 [Docket No. 97] (Sixth Appellate District) notified the parties that it would hold oral argument in the State Court Appeal on January 12, 2010; WHEREAS, all parties agree that additional time for fact discovery is warranted in this action due to the ongoing nature of the State Court Appeal, the time consumed by the parties' separate motions directed to privilege issues, and other issues that have arisen during the course of discovery to date;

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, through their respective counsel of record, that:

(1) The deadline by which all fact discovery shall be completed is extended to and including May 28, 2010; 21

(2) The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for February 5, 2010 shall remain on calendar.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: December 23, 2009

Filer's Attestation: Pursuant to General

Order No. 45, Section X.B. regrinding non-filing signatories, Wendy J. Thurm hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order has been obtained from Clark S. Stone.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. JEREMY FOGEL United States District Court Judge

20100104

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.