Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

FUJIFILM CORPORATION v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, 3:12-cv-03587-RS. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130201c29 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 31, 2013
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (FROM JANUARY 31, 2013 TO FEBRUARY 14, 2013) RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. Plaintiff Fujifilm Corporation and Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (collectively, the "parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, the Court's Case Management Order (Docket #25) requires the parties to file a stipulated protective order by January 31, 2013;
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (FROM JANUARY 31, 2013 TO FEBRUARY 14, 2013)

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

Plaintiff Fujifilm Corporation and Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (collectively, the "parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, the Court's Case Management Order (Docket #25) requires the parties to file a stipulated protective order by January 31, 2013;

WHEREAS, the parties have met and conferred regarding the terms of a protective order but due to the complexity of certain issues have not yet been able to fully consider and reach agreement on all terms;

WHEREAS, the parties believe that further time to meet and confer will greatly benefit the resolution of these issues and avoid unnecessary intervention by the Court;

WHEREAS, there have been no previous modifications to the Court's schedule, and an extension of the protective order deadline will not affect other Court-set deadlines;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective attorneys of record that the parties shall have an additional two weeks, until February 14, 2012, to file a stipulated protective order.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I, Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 31st day of January, 2013, at Palo Alto.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer