Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

GENENTECH, INC. v. APOTEX INC., 3:11-cv-02410-JSW. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140409a70 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 08, 2014
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER THEREON JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge. Plaintiffs Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and Roche Palo Alto LLC ("Roche Palo Alto") and Defendant Apotex Inc. ("Apotex"), pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2, respectfully request that the Court enter the following stipulation to continue by eight (8) weeks the date of the further case management conference and of the associated deadline for submitting a joint case mana
More

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER THEREON

JEFFREY S. WHITE, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Genentech, Inc. ("Genentech") and Roche Palo Alto LLC ("Roche Palo Alto") and Defendant Apotex Inc. ("Apotex"), pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2, respectfully request that the Court enter the following stipulation to continue by eight (8) weeks the date of the further case management conference and of the associated deadline for submitting a joint case management statement, while the parties actively pursue the possibility of a settlement.

1. Reason for the Extension of Time.

On March 10, 2014 the Court issued an Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment in which the Court scheduled a further case management conference for April 18, 2014 and ordered the parties to submit a joint case management statement by April 11, 2014. ECF No. 112 at 4. Following issuance of this Order, the parties have been engaged in direct discussions to explore the possibility of a settlement. The parties have made progress in their negotiations and have jointly agreed to seek the requested extension so that the parties can pursue these discussions and, if the case is settled, present the necessary papers to the Court.

2. Prior Time Modifications in This Case.

On August 1, 2011 and March 22, 2012, the Court sua sponte rescheduled the dates of the claim construction tutorial and the claim construction hearing, without affecting the remaining scheduled pretrial dates. ECF Nos. 41 & 59. On October 25, 2011 and February 1, 2013, the Court granted the parties' stipulated requests to extend the ADR deadline, without affecting the remaining scheduled pretrial dates. ECF Nos. 47 & 55. On November 13, 2013, the Court granted the parties' stipulated request to amend the Case Management and Magistrate Judge Referral Order (ECF No. 71). ECF No. 78. On July 8, 2013, the Court sua sponte entered an order continuing scheduled pretrial dates. ECF No. 102. On October 25, 2013 the Court sua sponte vacated the hearing date for the defendant's motion for summary judgment concurrently with granting a stipulated request in the related case to vacate the hearing date for the defendant's motion for summary judgment in that case. ECF No. 107. On January 10, 2014, the Court sua sponte vacated all dates previously set in this case. ECF No. 111. On March 10, 2014, the Court issued an Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment, setting a deadline of April 11, 2014 for the parties to submit a case management statement and scheduling a further case management conference for April 18, 2014. ECF No. 112.

3. Effect of Modification.

The requested extension will extend the deadline for the parties to submit their joint case management statement to June 6, 2014, and will reschedule the date of the further case management conference for June 13, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.

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