Filed: Jan. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND RE-SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Non-Parties Pavel Prosyankin and Joe Doe (collectively "Objectors"), by their counsel Jeffrey L. Bornstein, and Applicant Ilyas Khrapunov, by his counsel Martha Boersch, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. On October 1, 2017, Objectors Pavel Prosyankin and John Doe filed a motion to quash the subpoena Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued on August 25, 2017,
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND RE-SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . Non-Parties Pavel Prosyankin and Joe Doe (collectively "Objectors"), by their counsel Jeffrey L. Bornstein, and Applicant Ilyas Khrapunov, by his counsel Martha Boersch, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. On October 1, 2017, Objectors Pavel Prosyankin and John Doe filed a motion to quash the subpoena Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued on August 25, 2017, t..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND RE-SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
Non-Parties Pavel Prosyankin and Joe Doe (collectively "Objectors"), by their counsel Jeffrey L. Bornstein, and Applicant Ilyas Khrapunov, by his counsel Martha Boersch, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On October 1, 2017, Objectors Pavel Prosyankin and John Doe filed a motion to quash the subpoena Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore issued on August 25, 2017, to Google, Inc. (Dkt. 8). Ilyas Khrapunov has applied for that subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
2. After briefing and oral argument on the motion to quash, Judge Westmore issued an order on November 22, 2017, granting in part and denying in part the Objectors' motion to quash. In the order, she granted the Objectors 15 days in which to file a motion in this Court for relief from her order. (Dkt. 29).
3. On December 6, 2017, the Objectors filed a Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Order of Magistrate Judge concurrently with an Administrative Motion to Augment Record and Set Briefing Schedule. (Dkts. 32 and 33). Based on the Court's calendar, Objectors noticed March 1, 2018, as the hearing date for their motions. Objectors' counsel has a conflict and after conferring with Applicant's counsel is requesting a four-week continuance to March 29, 2018, due to the Court's availability.
4. Subject to this Court's confirming Order, the parties request that:
• The hearing date be continued to March 29, 2018.
• Applicant Khrapunov's responses shall be filed on or before February 21, 2018.
• Any replies by the Objectors shall be filed on or before March 7, 2018.
IT IS SO STIPULATED
ECF ATTESTATION
I attest that concurrence in e-filing this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND RE-SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE has been received from Martha Boesrsch in compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3).
ORDDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based on tthhe foregoing stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the motions hearing prevviously set for March 1, 2018 has been continued to March 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Appplicant Ilyas Khrapunov's oppositions to the Motion for De Novo Review and Administrative Motion to Augment Record and Set Briefing should be due on or before February 21, 2018. Any replies by the Objectors shall be filed on or before March 7, 2018. This Ordeer does not alter the Stay Order issued by the Magistrate Judge in her November 22, 20177, order (Dkt. 29), which shall remain in effect throughout the pendency of this appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
