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.

Techcrunch, Inc., et al. v. Fusion Garage Pte. Ltd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


December 16, 2011

TECHCRUNCH, INC., ET AL.
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD.,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Court Judge

*E-Filed 12/16/11*

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING DATE WRITTEN DISCOVERY RESPONSES ARE DUE

WHEREAS, the parties engaged in private mediation on September 21, 2011, and executed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding final settlement of this case at the mediation; 3

WHEREAS, the parties sought a stay pending the execution of a definitive agreement, which 4 was granted by Judge Richard Seeborg on September 23, 2011 (Dkt. 216); 5

WHEREAS, the parties were unable to reach a final agreement regarding settlement despite 6 lengthy and good faith settlement negotiations (Dkt. 217, 219, 220);

WHEREAS, prior to the Court ordered stay, the parties propounded the following sets of 8 written discovery: Defendant's Requests for Production (Set 4), Interrogatories (Set 3), and 9 2 Requests for Admission (Set 1); and Plaintiffs' Requests For Production (Set 8) and Interrogatories 10 (Set 4) (collectively, "Written Discovery"); 11

WHEREAS, the parties had previously stipulated to serve responses to the Written Discovery Winston & Strawn LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 12 on December 16, 2011, which was approved by the Court in an order dated November 11, 2011 13 (Dkt. 221, Dkt. 222); 14

WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents on September 9, 2011 (Dkt. 212); 16

WHEREAS, in accordance with the parties' stipulated schedule, approved by the Court in an 17 order dated November 11, 2011 (Dkt. 221, Dkt. 222), Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion to 18 Compel on December 2, 2011 (Dkt. 226); 19

WHEREAS, the Court entered an order scheduling the hearing on the Motion to Compel on 15 January 3, 2012 (Dkt. 224); 21

WHEREAS, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP filed a motion to withdraw as 22 counsel of record for Fusion Garage on December 13, 2011 ("Quinn Emanuel's Motion") (Dkt. 23 230); 24

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by the undersigned counsel on behalf of the 25 parties identified below that, subject to Court approval, the December 16, 2011 date to provide 26 responses to the parties' Written Discovery, shall be continued to a date mutually agreeable between 27 the parties in light of Quinn Emanuel's Motion.

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby further stipulated by the undersigned counsel on behalf of 2 the parties identified below that, subject to Court approval, the Motion to Compel shall be 3 withdrawn, without prejudice to its reintroduction after the resolution of Quinn Emanuel's Motion.

Dated: December 15, 2011 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 5 6 By: /s/ David S. Bloch Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: December 15, 2011 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 10 11 San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Winston & Strawn LLP By: /s/ 101 California Street Evette D. Pennypacker Attorneys for Defendant PURSUANT

TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

DATED: December ___, 2011

ATTESTATION

I, Evette D. Pennypacker, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, that I have obtained the concurrence to the filing of this document of each signatory hereto.

By: /s/ Evette D. Pennypacker Winston & Strawn LLP California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802

20111216

© 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.