Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Canon Solutions America, Inc. v. Ray Morgan Company, Inc., 4:14-cv-01202-YGR. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140502h84 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 01, 2014
Latest Update: May 01, 2014
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER EXTEND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY DEADLINES YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge. ORDER Upon the stipulation of Plaintiff CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA, INC., a New York Corporation ("Plaintiff") and Defendants RAY MORGAN COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; RMC A RAY MORGAN COMPANY, LLC, a California corporation; DEBORAH ROYSTON, a citizen of California; MARK HIPPERSON, a citizen of California; CRAIG COLLINS, a citizen of California; STEVE RIEGER, a citizen of Califor
More

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO FURTHER EXTEND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY DEADLINES

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

ORDER

Upon the stipulation of Plaintiff CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA, INC., a New York Corporation ("Plaintiff") and Defendants RAY MORGAN COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; RMC A RAY MORGAN COMPANY, LLC, a California corporation; DEBORAH ROYSTON, a citizen of California; MARK HIPPERSON, a citizen of California; CRAIG COLLINS, a citizen of California; STEVE RIEGER, a citizen of California; ANTHONY BISHOP, a citizen of California (collectively, "Defendants"); it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Magistrate Judge Ryu's April 23 Order re Discovery Letters [Dkt. 52] shall be amended as follows:

1. Defendants shall provide responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories no later than May 5, 2014;

2. Defendants shall produce responsive documents to Plaintiff on a rolling basis every four business days beginning on April 29, with no less than half of the remaining production to be produced by May 13, and the full production of all responsive documents to be completed by May 27. If Defendants fail to comply with these requirements for rolling production, then Plaintiff may seek further relief from the Court, including, without limitation, modification of the other deadlines provided by this stipulation and/or sanctions for such failure to comply with these requirements;

3. The parties will take depositions during the period of June 9 through June 20;

4. Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be submitted during the week of June 30, with the nature of briefing and exact briefing schedule subject to the need for an evidentiary hearing;

5. By no later than noon on June 23, the parties will jointly inform Judge Gonzalez Rogers whether they anticipate the need for an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, subject to the court's schedule and availability;

6. The court will conduct a telephonic conference on June 24, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. on the subject of the briefing schedule for Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the need for an evidentiary hearing in support of same. A hearing date will be determined at that time.

7. A hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is set for July ___, 2014 in Courtroom 1 of the United States Courthouse located at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California.

The "Standstill" Order conditions in Judge Ryu's April 23 Order [Dkt. 52] shall remain in place until the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and expire at the time of that hearing unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

All remaining portions of Judge Ryu's April 23 Order [Dkt. 52] shall remain unchanged.

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