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.

Emc Corporation v. Bright Response

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


August 13, 2012

EMC CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward M. Chen United States District Judge

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND/OR TRANSFER [L.R. 6-1, 6-2, 7-12]

Pursuant to this Court's Order (Dkt. No. 39) and Civil Local Rules 6-1, 6-2, and 7-12, 2 EMC Corporation ("EMC") and Bright Response, LLC ("Bright Response," and together with 3 EMC the "Parties") respectfully declare and stipulate to continue the briefing schedule for Bright 4 Response's motions to dismiss and/or transfer (Dkt. Nos. 23 and 25) as follows: 5

1. The due date for EMC's Oppositions to the Bright Response motions to dismiss and/or transfer (Dkt. Nos. 23 and 25) is continued from August 14, 2012 to no later than August 21, 2012.

2. The due date for Bright Response's Replies in support of its motions to dismiss and/or transfer (Dkt. Nos. 23 and 25) is continued from August 21, 2012 to no later than August 28, 2012.

The purpose for the extensions of time is to allow EMC to investigate the issues and 12 allegations raised in Bright Response's motions. In accordance with Civil Local Rule 6-2(a)(2), 13 the only time modifications to the case thus far have been two stipulated extensions of time for 14

Bright Response to respond to the complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 12 and 17.) In accordance with Civil 15 Local Rule 6-2(a)(3), the Parties do not believe that the requested time modifications will have any 16 impact on the case schedule as one has not yet been set.

SO STIPULATED:

DATED: August 10, 2012 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By /s/ Andrew M. Holmes Andrew M. Holmes Attorneys for Plaintiff EMC Corporation DATED: August 10, 2012 BLACK CHANG & HAMILL LLP By /s/ Bradford J. Black Bradford J. Black Attorneys for Defendant Bright Response, LLC

ATTESTATION

I, Andrew M. Holmes, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has 3 been obtained from Bradford J. Black, counsel for Bright Response, LLC. I declare under penalty 4 of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 5

Executed this 10th day of August, 2012 in San Francisco, California.

By /s/ Andrew M. Holmes Andrew M. Holmes

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. RI

IT IS SO ORDERED

20120813

© 1992-2012 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.