Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04269/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04269-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EROS LLC, et al.,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 09-4269 PJH

v. ORDER RE CLASS CERTIFICATION

BRIEFING AND HEARING

LINDEN RESEARCH INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is the stipulation and proposed order of the parties seeking a one

week extension of the dates set by the court for the briefing of plaintiff’s class certification

motion. The request is based upon good cause and is GRANTED. The parties continue to

request four weeks instead of the two weeks permitted by the local rules between the filing

of the moving papers and the opposition and two weeks instead of the one week permitted

by the local rules between the filing of the opposition and the reply. However, the parties

have shortened by one week the period between the reply brief and the hearing. The court

set the original expanded briefing schedule at the case management conference based

upon the parties’ request which was based upon the anticipated complexity and/or size of

the motion for class certification. If the parties believe they need more time to brief this

motion than the time generally allotted, it is likely, in view of the court’s heavy docket, that

the court will also need more time. Thus the hearing will be three not two weeks after the

reply brief is filed, on August 18, 2010 instead of August 11, 2010.

Case 4:09-cv-04269-PJH Document 31 Filed 06/09/10 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

If this change in hearing date poses a problem for the parties, the parties may

stipulate to another hearing date. No trial date has been scheduled and there is room for

flexibility in the pretrial dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04269-PJH Document 31 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2