Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC. v. MICROSTRATEGY INC., 11-6637-RS. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20121218835 Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 17, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFF VSI'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND FURTHER REQUESTING CHANGE OF DATE TO HEAR MOTION RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. STIPULATION WHEREAS, plaintiff Vasudevan Software, Inc. ("VSI") on December 12, 2012 filed its Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 145); WHEREAS, the current deadline for defendant MicroStrategy Inc. ("MicroStrategy") to respond with an opposition to VSI's motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a) is December 26, 20
More

STIPULATION REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND AND REPLY TO PLAINTIFF VSI'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND FURTHER REQUESTING CHANGE OF DATE TO HEAR MOTION

RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, plaintiff Vasudevan Software, Inc. ("VSI") on December 12, 2012 filed its Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 145);

WHEREAS, the current deadline for defendant MicroStrategy Inc. ("MicroStrategy") to respond with an opposition to VSI's motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a) is December 26, 2012, which would require MicroStrategy's attorneys to work on the holiday;

WHEREAS, the current deadline for VSI to reply pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(d) is January 2, 2013;

WHEREAS, the current date for the Hon. Richard Seeborg to hear VSI's Motion for Sanctions is January 17, 2013;

WHEREAS, granting the extensions of time below will have no impact on any other deadlines in this action;

NOW THEREFORE, it is stipulated by and between VSi and MicroStrategy that:

1. MicroStrategy shall have until January 4, 2013 to respond with an opposition to VSI's Motion for Sanctions; 2. VSI shall have until January 14, 2013 to respond with a reply to MicroStrategy's opposition to VSI's Motion for Sanctions; and 3. For the convenience of the Court and the parties, VSI shall present its Motion for Sanctions before the Hon. Richard Seeborg on January 24, 2013.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, 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