Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03114/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03114-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

 *E-FILED 8/31/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ISMART INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Plaintiff, 

vs.

I-DOCSECURE, LLC, a California limited liability

company; E-NETSECURE SERVICES, INC., a

California corporation; INTEGRITY DATA

APPLICATION CONSULTING, LLC, a California

limited liability company; ISMART SECURE LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company; JOSEPH BAGGIO,

an individual; JONATHAN BALZORA, an individual,

Defendants. ______________________________________________

CASE NO. C 04-03114 RMW (RS)

ORDER REQUIRING

SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL

DECLARATION OR

DECLARATIONS

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

______________________________________________

As permitted by the Court’s Order filed August 8, 2006, plaintiff has filed a declaration

explaining why it is unable to produce certain documents within the time frame specified in that

order, and requesting additional time. Plaintiff’s declaration, however, does not provide the

information required by the August 8th Order regarding when plaintiff reasonably believes the

production can be completed. Plaintiff shall, within two court days of the date of this order, file an

additional declaration or declarations that (1) provide sufficient information for the Court to

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 281 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

determine how much additional time to complete the production is reasonably necessary, and (2)

explain why the information regarding the July 2006 fire in plaintiff’s offices was not presented to

the Court prior to or at the hearing held in this matter on August 2, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: 8/31/06 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 281 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED

TO:

Michael N. Edelman michaeledelman@paulhastings.com,

christinahenderson@paulhastings.com; marcosvera@paulhastings.com;

lauriepaffhausen@paulhastings.com

Christopher James Keller christopher.keller@sdma.com, sdmacalendaring@sdma.com

Marc A. Koonin marc.koonin@sdma.com

Joseph Kouri joseph.kouri@sdma.com

Shanee Y. Williams shaneewilliams@paulhastings.com,

rosemaryjonesshine@paulhastings.com

Dated: 8/31/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03114-RMW Document 281 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 3