HARVEY E%i§3l
june 27, 2007 im K. Boyd
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING and HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel
United States District Court for Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Courtroom 15, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Mar/é Li/{ger r// b/ 67 Crm/iw Mar/ee/ing Convey)/J v. /l/zdrew Verigx am! C/am/z`/241 C/yang
Case No. C 07-02748 MHP
Your Honor:
This law firm is counsel to Plaintiff in the above action. I write in reference to the Clerk’s
Notice issued yesterday regarding the continuance of the preliininary injunction hearing and related
briefing dates.
As the Court may recall, it originally ordered that the Defendants file and serve their
opposition brief by june 11, 2007, and that Plaintiff file and serve its reply brief by june 18, 2007,
with the hearing scheduled for july 9, 2007. Subsequently, at the request of Defendants for
additional time, Plaintiff agreed to a two-week extension for Defendants to both respond to the
Complaint and to file their opposition brief. Accordingly, on june 11, 2007, the parties submitted a
Stipulation and Proposed Order calling for Defendants to file and serve both their opposition brief
and response to the Complaint on june 25, 2007, with Plaintiffs reply brief due july 2, 2007, while
maintaining the july 9 hearing date.
Prior to the Court ruling on this Stipulation and Proposed Order, Defendants again
requested that Plaintiff stipulate to a brief continuance, from june 25, 2007 to june 29, 2007,
regarding the filing of Defendants’ opposition brief. Plaintiff again agreed to this request, but
advised Defendants that its counsel had long—standing vacation plans in july, returning to the office
on july 9. Accordingly, Plaintiff stated that it would agree to this second continuance moving its
reply date from july 2 only if Defendants would afford Plaintiff until july 16, 2007 to file and serve
Four; EMBARC/misno CENTER 39TH FLOOR sAN FR/mcisco CALIFORNIA 94111
TELE1>1~1oN12 415.354.01OO FACSIMILE 415.3%.7124 WWW.HARVEYSISKIND,COM
Case 3:07-cv—02748-I\/IHP Document 23 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 2 of 2
Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel
june 27, 2007
Page 2
its reply brief. Defendants agreed and the parties submitted a second Stipulation and Proposed
Order on june 25, 2007. The effect of the responsive june 26 Clerk’s Notice calling for Plaintiff to
file its reply brief on july 9 is to force Plaintiffs counsel to cancel its vacation plans as a
consequence of its accommodating Defendants’ requests for additional time.
In light of the above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff until july
16, 2007 to file its reply brief. Should the Court wish to have additional time to review the parties’
papers prior to the prelirninary injunction hearing, Plaintiff and Defendants have conferred and
stipulate to a continuance of the preliininaiy injunction hearing until August 7 (Defendants’ counsel
has a july 30 deposition in New York that it cannot reschedule). In addition, the parties stipulate to
continue the temporary restraining order currently in effect until that time, pursuant to P.R.C.P.
65(b).
Should the Court wish, I am happy to submit a formal Stipulation and Proposed Order on
behalf of the parties. However, I believed that a letter to the Court was a better method to explain
the circumstances of this request.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
a.
Ian K. Boyd
IKB:cl
cc: Richard Harrington, Esq. (002/me/jhr c/¢»//da/2/J)
Robert C. Ward, Esq. (002//are/jhr dzfendm//r)
Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP
Document 23
Filed 06/27/2007
Page 1 of 2
Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP
Document 23
Filed 06/27/2007
Page 2 of 2
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms