Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00711-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NETBULA, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 BINDVIEW DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C06-00711 MJJ

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO

SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine to exclude the testimony of Gregory T.

Kovecses. (Docket No. 260.) The Pretrial Conference in this matter is scheduled for September 25,

2007 at 3:30 p.m. and trial will begin October 1, 2007. On September 10, 2007 the Court granted

(1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Copyright Infringement; (2) Defendant

Pulaski’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Defendant Bindview’s Motion for Summary

Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract and Fraud causes of action. The only claim remaining

in this matter is statutory unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code §

17200 et seq. 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 293 Filed 09/20/07 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

Given the recent changes in the posture of this matter, the Court ORDERS the parties to file,

by 10:00 a.m. Monday, September 24th, a letter brief no longer than 5 pages in length addressing

the following:

1. Whether the parties have a right to a jury trial on the § 17200 claim, which appears to be

equitable in nature,

2. Given the dismissal of all federal claims, whether this Court should continue to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the § 17200 claim,

3. What portions of the Motion in Limine, the Opposition and the supporting documents remain

relevant in this matter, and

4. Any other material changes to pretrial considerations that have resulted from the summary

judgment grant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MJJ Document 293 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 2