Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02581/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02581-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF 

464251.01 

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 

ELLIOT R. PETERS - #158708 

WENDY J. THURM - #163558 

STEVEN P. RAGLAND - #221076 

JOHN E. TRINIDAD - #250468 

710 Sansome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

epeters@kvn.com 

wthurm@kvn.com 

sragland@kvn.com 

jtrinidad@kvn.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

and THOMAS D. KOHLER 

CLARK S. STONE - #202123 

STEVEN M. LEVITAN - #148716 

INCHAN A. KWON - #247614 

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 

2033 Gateway Place, Suite 400 

San Jose, CA 95110 

Telephone: (408) 392-9250 

Facsimile: (408) 392-9262 

clark.stone@haynesboone.com 

steve.levitan@haynesboone.com 

inchan.kwon@haynesboone.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

LANDMARK SCREENS, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

LANDMARK SCREENS, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, a 

limited liability partnership; and THOMAS D. 

KOHLER, an individual, 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND FACT 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel 

 Courtroom 3 

Comp. Filed: May 21, 2008 

Trial Date: None set 

 

------------------

Case 4:08-cv-02581-PJH Document 107 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 4
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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF 

464251.01 

This stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiff Landmark Screens, LLC 

(“Landmark”) and Defendants Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP (“MLB”) and Thomas D. Kohler 

(“Kohler”), pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, as follows: 

WHEREAS, on November 30, 2005, Landmark filed a complaint for legal malpractice 

and other claims against MLB, Kohler and Pennie & Edmonds LLP in Santa Clara County 

Superior Court, Case No. 1-05-CV-053568 (the “State Court Action”); 

WHEREAS, on or around March 2008, Landmark entered into a settlement with Pennie 

& Edmonds and Thomas Kohler (in his capacity as a Pennie partner), and continued to prosecute 

the State Court Action against MLB and Kohler (in his capacity as an MLB partner); 

WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, the Superior Court sustained MLB and Kohler’s 

Demurrer to Landmark’s state court complaint without leave to amend, finding that it lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction because Landmark’s claims required resolution of a substantial 

question of federal patent law; 

WHEREAS, thereafter, Landmark filed a notice of appeal (the “State Court Appeal”); 

WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, Landmark filed this federal action based on federal 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338; 

WHEREAS, on November 3, 2008, Landmark filed its Second Amended Complaint in 

this action [Docket No. 31]; 

WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the Court issued an order Granting in Part and 

Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Landmark’s Second Amended Complaint 

[Docket No. 42]; 

WHEREAS, on May 15, 2009, the parties participated in a Case Management 

Conference during which the Court heard MLB and Kohler’s proposal to stay fact discovery 

pending resolution of the State Court Appeal; 

WHEREAS during the May 15, 2009 Case Management conference, the court set a 

January 30, 2010 fact discovery cut-off and scheduled a Further Case Management Conference 

for February 5, 2010; 

WHEREAS, on September 1, 2009, MLB filed a Motion to Compel Production of 

Case 4:08-cv-02581-PJH Document 107 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 4
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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF 

464251.01 

Documents and Compel In Camera Review of Documents [Docket No. 62], and the motion was 

granted in part and denied in part on October 21, 2009 [Docket No. 81] 

WHEREAS, MLB filed Objections to the Magistrate’s Order [Docket No. 82], and the 

Court issued its ruling on those objections on December 15, 2009 [Docket No. 94]; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Magistrate Lloyd’s in camera review, Landmark was ordered to 

produce certain documents by December 22, 2009 [Docket No. 95]; 

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, Landmark filed a Motion to Compel Production of 

Documents Withheld as Privileged [Docket No. 85], and a hearing on that motion is set for 

January 19, 2010 [Docket No. 97] 

WHEREAS, on December 17, 2009, the Court of Appeal for the State of California 

(Sixth Appellate District) notified the parties that it would hold oral argument in the State Court 

Appeal on January 12, 2010; 

WHEREAS, all parties agree that additional time for fact discovery is warranted in this 

action due to the ongoing nature of the State Court Appeal, the time consumed by the parties’ 

separate motions directed to privilege issues, and other issues that have arisen during the course 

of discovery to date; 

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, through 

their respective counsel of record, that: 

(1) The deadline by which all fact discovery shall be completed is extended to and 

including May 28, 2010; 

(2) The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for February 5, 2010 shall 

remain on calendar. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Case 4:08-cv-02581-PJH Document 107 Filed 01/08/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE 

Case No. 5:08-cv-2581 JF 

464251.01 

Dated: December 23, 2009 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 

By: /s/ Wendy J. Thurm 

WENDY J. THURM 

Attorneys for Defendants 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

and THOMAS D. KOHLER 

Dated: December 23, 2009 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 

By: /s/ Clark S. Stone 

CLARK S. STONE 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

LANDMARK SCREENS, LLC 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General 

Order No. 45, Section X.B. regrinding nonfiling signatories, Wendy J. Thurm hereby 

attests that concurrence in the filing of this 

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order has been 

obtained from Clark S. Stone. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________, _______ 

 

HON. JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Court Judge 

1/4/10

Case 4:08-cv-02581-PJH Document 107 Filed 01/08/10 Page 4 of 4