Filed: Sep. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULING JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO CASES: Opperman v. Path, Inc., No. 13-cv-00453-JST Hernandez v. Path, Inc., No. 12-cv-1515-JST Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-cv-1529-JST Espitita v. Hipter, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-432-JST (collectively, the "Related Actions") The undersigned parties hereby stipulate to the following with respect to the schedule for considering Twitter's Motion for Summary Judgment (
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULING JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO CASES: Opperman v. Path, Inc., No. 13-cv-00453-JST Hernandez v. Path, Inc., No. 12-cv-1515-JST Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-cv-1529-JST Espitita v. Hipter, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-432-JST (collectively, the "Related Actions") The undersigned parties hereby stipulate to the following with respect to the schedule for considering Twitter's Motion for Summary Judgment (E..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULING
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO CASES: Opperman v. Path, Inc., No. 13-cv-00453-JST Hernandez v. Path, Inc., No. 12-cv-1515-JST Pirozzi v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-cv-1529-JST Espitita v. Hipter, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-432-JST (collectively, the "Related Actions")
The undersigned parties hereby stipulate to the following with respect to the schedule for considering Twitter's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 725), and respectfully request that the Court issue the requested scheduling order.
The parties stipulate that hearing on the Motion, currently scheduled for September 22, 2016, may be vacated, and request that the Court issue an order vacating the hearing.
The parties further stipulate that the revised scheduling order required by the Stipulation and Order Regarding Case Scheduling (ECF No. 829) entered on September 12, 2016, will contain proposals for hearing dates to resolve Twitter's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The parties further request that the Court not rule on Plaintiffs' pending Objections to Evidence, (ECF No. 836) until after the revised scheduling order is entered by this Court. The parties further agree that Twitter shall have the right to file a response to the Objections prior to any Court ruling.
ATTESTATION
I, James G. Snell, do hereby declare pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3) that concurrence in the filing of the foregoing document has been obtained from Plaintiffs' counsel on this 16th day of September, 2016.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The Stipulation between Plaintiffs and Twitter is GRANTED as follows:
The Court vacates the hearing on Twitter's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 725), currently scheduled for September 22, 2016.
The Plaintiffs and Twitter will include proposals for hearing dates on Twitter's Motion in the revised scheduling order required by the Stipulation and Order Regarding Case Scheduling (ECF No. 829) entered on September 12, 2016.
The Court will defer ruling on Plaintiffs' Objections to Evidence (ECF No. 836), until after the revised scheduling order is entered and until after Twitter has filed a response to the Objections.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
