Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States v. Bazaarvoice, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 1, 2013

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Bazaarvoice, Inc., Defendant.

BORIS FELDMAN, State Bar No. 128838, DYLAN J. LIDDIARD, State Bar No. 203055, DOMINIQUE-CHANTALE ALEPIN, State Bar No. 241648, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, Professional Corporation, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Bazaarvoice, Inc.

Peter K. Huston, Assistant Chief United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America.

AMENDED JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING PRE-TRIAL DEADLINES

WILLIAM ORRICK, District Judge.

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2013, this case was reassigned to Judge William Orrick;

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2013, the parties presented a stipulation to the Court concerning pre-trial deadlines;

WHEREAS, on July 11, 2013, the Court held a Case Management Conference;

WHEREAS, at that Case Management Conference, the Court noted that it found the stipulation acceptable save the provision moving the deadline for the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to after the trial;

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding pretrial deadlines for the exchanging and filing of certain materials and have reviewed Judge Orrick's Pretrial Standing Order;

WHEREAS, the parties believe that certain modifications to the schedule under the Pretrial Standing Order that were previously presented to the Court as acceptable should be made;

WHEREAS, the parties also intend to clarify a matter pertaining to the filing of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law;

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed between Plaintiff and Defendant through their respective counsel listed below, subject to the approval of the Court, that:

1. For documents that have Bates numbers, the parties shall exchange a list of exhibits by Bates numbers only;
2. For documents without Bates numbers that have been previously produced to the other party, the parties shall exchange a list describing the exhibit;
3. For documents that do not have Bates numbers or have not been previously produced to the other party, the parties shall exchange the exhibits as contemplated by the local ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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