Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02935/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02935-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

XYTEX CORPORATION, a Georgia

Corporation, XYTEX CRYO

INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Georgia

Corporation, MARY HARTLEY, an

individual, J. TODD SPRADLIN, an

individual, and DOES 1–25, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-02935 WHA

ORDER CONTINUING

EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

The parties have stipulated to continue the evidentiary hearing scheduled for September

28, due to plaintiff Jane Doe 2’s unavailability on that date due to her attendance at an out-ofstate conference pre-paid by her employer. Additionally, Xytex asks to be allowed to file

supplemental briefs following the hearing. Finally, Xytex asks to be allowed to use the Court’s

computer system and Internet access in order to display its website during the examination of

witnesses.

The evidentiary hearing is hereby CONTINUED to MONDAY, OCTOBER 17 AT 1:30 P.M.

The parties may each file supplemental briefs NOT TO EXCEED TEN PAGES by THURSDAY,

OCTOBER 27 AT NOON. They may likewise reply by THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3 AT NOON. 

The foregoing proceedings shall not revisit the issues already decided in the prior order

on Xytex’s motion to transfer. That is, among other issues, neither the evidentiary hearing nor

Case 3:16-cv-02935-WHA Document 45 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the subsequent briefing shall be treated as opportunities to reargue whether Xytex’s website

gave reasonable notice of the site usage agreement. That argument has already been rejected

(Dkt. No. 27 at 7). The only issue is whether plaintiffs had actual notice of the agreement when

they used Xytex’s website in 2004, such that they can be charged with assent to its terms

(including the forum-selection clause).

Xytex should submit a proposed order identifying the specific equipment it wishes to

bring into the courtroom pursuant to General Order No. 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02935-WHA Document 45 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 2