GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. v. MERCK & CO, INC., 13-cv-04057-BLF. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160620712
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING DEADLINE ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES [Re: ECF 427] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is the parties' joint stipulation to extend the briefing deadline on Gilead's motion for attorneys' fees. Under the Civil Local Rules, Gilead's motion is due June 20, Merck's opposition is due July 5, and Gilead's reply is July 12. According to the parties' request, the parties seek to extend the briefing schedule because Gilead needs more time to collect su
Summary: ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING DEADLINE ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES [Re: ECF 427] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court is the parties' joint stipulation to extend the briefing deadline on Gilead's motion for attorneys' fees. Under the Civil Local Rules, Gilead's motion is due June 20, Merck's opposition is due July 5, and Gilead's reply is July 12. According to the parties' request, the parties seek to extend the briefing schedule because Gilead needs more time to collect sup..
More
ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING DEADLINE ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
[Re: ECF 427]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court is the parties' joint stipulation to extend the briefing deadline on Gilead's motion for attorneys' fees. Under the Civil Local Rules, Gilead's motion is due June 20, Merck's opposition is due July 5, and Gilead's reply is July 12. According to the parties' request, the parties seek to extend the briefing schedule because Gilead needs more time to collect supporting documentation. The parties propose having Gilead's motion due on July 14, Merck's opposition due on August 26, and Gilead's reply due on September 16.
While the parties have provided a reason for extending the deadline to the file the opening motion, the proffered reason does not warrant a more than 3 week extension. The parties have also not provided any reason for extending the deadlines to file the opposition and reply briefs. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties' stipulation. The Court will allow the parties to file any motions for attorneys' fees on the same schedule as any potential post-judgment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), 52(b), and 59. Accordingly, the opening brief on any attorneys' fees motion must be filed no later than 28 days after judgment was entered. Any opposition is due 14 days after the opening brief and any reply is due 7 days after the opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
