Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05133/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05133-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING DATE 

Case No. CV-09-5133 JF 

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 

DAVID R. BURTT, State Bar No. 201220 

 dburtt@ongaroburtt.com ONGARO BURTT LLP 

595 Market Street, Suite 610 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 433-3900 

Facsimile: (415) 433-3950 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TIM RHODES 

AMBER RYE BRUMFIEL, State Bar No. 215181 

 amber.rye@sdma.com

SEDGWICK DETERT MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 

One Market Plaza 

Steuart Tower, 8th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 781-7900 

Facsimile: (415) 781-2635 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

QUALITY TECHNOLOGY SERVICES HOLDING, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

QUALITY TECHNOLOGY SERVICES 

HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHRISTIAN KOCH, an individual, DAVID 

BUCIAK, an individual, DATAPIPE, INC., a 

California Corporation, TIM RHODES, an 

individual, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. CV-09-5133 JF 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

(1) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

HEARING DATE AND (2) TO EXTEND 

TIME FOR DEFENDANTS DATAPIPE, 

INC., DAVID BUCIAK, AND TIM 

RHODES TO RESPOND TO 

COMPLAINT 

WHEREAS on October 29, 2009, Plaintiff Quality Technology Services Holding, LLC 

filed its Complaint in the above-captioned matter; 

**E-Filed 4/9/2010**

Case 5:09-cv-05133-JF Document 49 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING DATE 

Case No. CV-09-5133 JF 

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 

WHEREAS on January 14, 2010, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation and continued 

the hearing date on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to March 5, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in 

order to allow the parties to pursue private settlement discussions, including conducting a 

detailed forensics examination protocol; 

WHEREAS on February 22, 2010, the Court granted the parties’ further stipulation and, 

in order to allow the parties to continue pursuing private settlement discussions based on the 

results of the ongoing forensics examination protocol, continued both (a) the hearing date on 

Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to April 16, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., and (b) the date for 

Defendants DataPipe, Inc., Buciak, and Rhodes to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint to April 16, 

2010; 

WHEREAS preliminary forensics examination has recently been completed, and 

although Plaintiff has requested some follow-up work from the third-party vendor, the parties 

have agreed to select a neutral from the Court’s ADR roster to attempt to informally resolve this 

case and expect to complete ADR by the time of the continued preliminary injunction hearing, 

thereby possibly obviating the need for the hearing; 

WHEREAS the parties once again stipulate and agree that the interests of judicial 

efficiency will be further served by continuing the hearing date on Plaintiff’s motion for 

preliminary injunction and the date for Defendants DataPipe, Inc., Buciak, and Rhodes to 

respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, respectively, for eight (8) weeks, or as soon thereafter as the 

Court’s schedule permits, such that: 

a) The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction shall be 

continued from April 16, 2010 to June 11, 20101; and 

b) The date for Defendants DataPipe, Inc., Buciak, and Rhodes to respond to 

Plaintiff’s complaint shall be extended to June 11, 2010; and 

 1

/ As referenced in the Court’s November 20, 2009 Order Granting Request for Temporary 

Restraining Order [at ECF Doc. No. 27], “[e]ach party may file a brief addressing the merits of the 

motion not to exceed fifteen (15) pages in length, on or before” June 8, 2010 (calculated as three 

days prior to the originally scheduled preliminary injunction hearing). 

Case 5:09-cv-05133-JF Document 49 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING DATE 

Case No. CV-09-5133 JF 

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 

c) The initial Case Management Conference shall remain scheduled for April 

23, 2010; 

WHEREAS the parties further stipulate and agree that the temporary restraining order 

issued on November 20, 2009, shall remain in effect pending further order by the Court; and 

WHEREAS pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(b), the parties acknowledge and agree that 

continuing these dates as requested will not alter the date of any other event or any deadline 

already fixed by Court order in this case. 

NOW THEREFORE Plaintiff and Defendants, by and through their respective counsel, 

hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Court continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion 

for preliminary injunction to June 11, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., and the date for Defendants DataPipe, 

Inc., Buciak, and Rhodes to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint to June 11, 2010. 

DATED: March 31, 2010 ONGARO BURTT LLP 

 

 By: /s/ David R. Burtt 

 David R. Burtt 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TIM RHODES 

DATED: March 31, 2010 CMD ASSOCIATES 

By: /s/ C. Matthew Didaleusky 

 C. Matthew Didaleusky 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DAVID BUCIAK 

DATED: March 31, 2010 WILLIAMS PINELLI & CULLEN 

By: /s/ Amy R. Carlson 

 Amy R. Carlson 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CHRISTIAN KOCH 

Case 5:09-cv-05133-JF Document 49 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING DATE 

Case No. CV-09-5133 JF 

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 

DATED: March 31, 2010 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

By: /s/ Michael J. Nader 

 Michael J. Nader 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DATAPIPE, INC. 

DATED: March 31, 2010 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP 

By: /s/ Amber Rye Brumfiel 

Amber Rye Brumfiel 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

QUALITY TECHNOLOGY SERVICES HOLDING, LLC 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _______________ 

 Hon. Jeremy Fogel 

 United District Court Judge 

 

4/9/2010

Case 5:09-cv-05133-JF Document 49 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING DATE 

Case No. CV-09-5133 JF 

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 

FILER’S ATTESTATION

Pursuant to General Order 45, section X(B), I hereby attest that on March 31, 2010, I, 

David R. Burtt, received the concurrence of Amber Brumfiel, Amy Carlson, Michael Nader, and 

Matthew Didaleusky in the filing of this document. 

 /s/ David R. Burtt 

 David R. Burtt 

Case 5:09-cv-05133-JF Document 49 Filed 04/09/10 Page 5 of 5