Filed: Jun. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to SK Innovation Co., Ltd.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative to Transfer" (document #180) and "Consent Motion to Expedite . . ." (document #181). The Court has carefully considered the parties' arguments, the authorities, and the record. The Court will, in its discretion, grant Plaintiff's Motion for Extension
Summary: ORDER DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to SK Innovation Co., Ltd.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative to Transfer" (document #180) and "Consent Motion to Expedite . . ." (document #181). The Court has carefully considered the parties' arguments, the authorities, and the record. The Court will, in its discretion, grant Plaintiff's Motion for Extension ..
More
ORDER
DAVID S. CAYER, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's "Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to SK Innovation Co., Ltd.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative to Transfer" (document #180) and "Consent Motion to Expedite . . ." (document #181).
The Court has carefully considered the parties' arguments, the authorities, and the record. The Court will, in its discretion, grant Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and deny as moot the Motion to Expedite.
NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss (document #156) is STAYED until the Court rules on Plaintiff's pending Motions to Compel, Document #138 in the present matter and Plaintiff's "Motion to Compel Third Party Apple, Inc. to Produce Documents . . ." (document #1) 5:14mc80139, filed May 15, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
2. In the event that both of Plaintiff's Motions to Compel are denied, the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss is stayed until fourteen days after the last such ruling.
3. In the event that one or both of Plaintiff's Motions to Compel are granted, Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss is stayed until twenty-one days after the completion of any additional discovery ordered by the Court pursuant to those Motions.
4. Plaintiff shall notify this Court promptly of any ruling on its Motion to Compel pending in the Northern District of California.
5. The "Consent Motion to Expedite . . ." (document #181) is DENIED AS MOOT.
6. The Clerk shall send copies of this to Order to the parties' counsel; and to the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr.
SO ORDERED.