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.

Berster Technologies v. Coy Christmas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 12, 2011

BERSTER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COY CHRISTMAS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

On August 11, 2011, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct personal jurisdiction discovery. Rajiv Dharnidharka appeared for plaintiff. Yuridia Caire appeared for defendants. During the hearing, counsel conferred and subsequently made certain stipulations as noted below. Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND ORDERS and announced them to the parties in open court:

1. Plaintiff's motion to conduct personal jurisdiction discovery is granted;

2. Counsel agree to the deposition of Coy Christmas on behalf of himself and as the Rule 30(b)(6) deponent for the corporate defendants. If the parties dispute the location or means of said deposition, they shall submit a joint statement to be received by the court no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 19, 2011;

3. There does not appear to be a dispute as to the proposed interrogatories. Accordingly, defendants shall respond to them within seven days of August 11, 2011. The court will consider changing this time period if there is a change to the hearing date on defendants' motion to dismiss, presently scheduled for September 4, 2011 before the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller; and

4. Counsel represented that a dispute does not exist concerning Requests for Production ("RFP") Nos. 1-12. Accordingly, defendants shall respond to them within seven days of August 11, 2011. Counsel also stipulate to the dismissal of RFP Nos. 13 and 17. Finally, the court orders that defendants shall respond to RFP No. 14 within seven days of August 11, 2011. The court further orders that defendants needs not respond to RFP Nos. 15 and

16. These latter RFPs are dismissed without prejudice to their renewal during the regular course of discovery.

20110812

© 1992-2011 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.