Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02361-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION REQUESTING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE 

CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA 

387711.01 

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP 

JEFFREY R. CHANIN - #103649 

DARALYN J. DURIE - #169825 

ASHOK RAMANI - #200020 

710 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

Email: jrc@kvn.com 

djd@kvn.com 

axr@kvn.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant, 

NETFLIX, INC. 

ALSCHULER GROSSMAN LLP 

Marshall B. Grossman (No. 35958) 

William J. O'Brien (No. 99526) 

Tony D. Chen (No. 176635) 

Dominique N. Thomas (No. 231464) 

The Water Garden 

1620 26th Street 

Fourth Floor, North Tower 

Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060 

Telephone: 310-907-1000 

Facsimile: 310-907-2000 

Email: mgrossman@alschuler.com 

wobrien@alschuler.com 

tchen@alschuler.com 

dthomas@alschuler.com 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant, 

Blockbuster Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, DOES 1-50, 

Defendant. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

Case No. C 06 2361 WHA 

STIPULATION REQUESTING 

CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE 

Complaint filed: April 4, 2006 

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 130 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 

STIPULATION REQUESTING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE 

CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA 

387711.01 

WHEREAS, Netflix, Inc. and Blockbuster Inc. (collectively, “the parties”) filed in 

November of 2006 cross-motions to compel and a motion for protective order, and subsequently 

reached agreement on the majority of the contested issues in those motions by way of a 

stipulation filed on December 15, 2006;1

WHEREAS, the parties have diligently attempted to reach agreement on the remaining 

issues and are currently endeavoring to reach agreement on a stipulation resolving those 

remaining issues; 

WHEREAS, the parties presently have a hearing scheduled for Friday, January 12, 2006 

on the remaining issues in dispute, with briefing on the issues remaining in dispute scheduled to 

be filed today; 

WHEREAS, the parties believe that additional time spent negotiating the terms of a 

stipulation resolving the remaining issues is likely to enable them either to reach complete 

agreement on a stipulation, obviating the need for a hearing, or to significantly narrow any issues 

that remain to be presented for resolution at a hearing; 

WHEREAS, the parties understand that Magistrate Judge Spero is available on January 

26 to hear argument on any remaining issues, should the parties prove unable to resolve all of the 

issues involved; 

THEREFORE, the parties hereby jointly request that the hearing presently scheduled for 

Friday, January 12, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. be continued until Friday, January 26, 2007 at 9:30 a.m., 

with the parties to submit either a finalized stipulation, or briefing that includes each side’s 

proposed order and arguments for why that proposed order should be adopted, no later than 

Wednesday, January 24, 2007. 

 

1

 A corrected version of that stipulation was filed on December 19, 2006, and the Court entered 

an Order pursuant to the corrected version of that stipulation on December 20, 2006. 

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 130 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 

STIPULATION REQUESTING CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE 

CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA 

387711.01 

Dated: January 10, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP

By: /s/ ____________________________

Eugene M. Paige 

Attorneys For Plaintiff and Counterclaim 

Defendant NETFLIX, INC. 

Dated: January 10, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

ALSCHULER GROSSMAN LLP

By: /s/ ____________________________

William J. O’Brien 

Attorneys For Defendant and 

Counterclaimant BLOCKBUSTER INC. 

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

By: __________________________________ 

THE HON. JOSEPH C. SPERO 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

January 11, 2007

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 130 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 3