Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05133/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05133-7/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 AND INITIAL CMC 

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, (2) INITIAL CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, AND 

(3) TO EXTEND TIME FOR 

DEFENDANT 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 2/22/2010**

ORDER APPROVING

Case 5:09-cv-05133-JF Document 42 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING DATE AND INITIAL CMC 

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 November 3, 2009, the Court re-assigned this case and set an initial Case 

Management Conference for March 12, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.; 

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.; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendants continue to diligently pursue private settlement 

discussions which involves a detailed forensics examination protocol currently underway and not 

yet completed; 

WHEREAS in the interests of judicial efficiency, the parties have already stipulated to 

continue several deadlines in this case including: 

a) continuing the hearing date on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 

injunction from December 4, 2009 to March 5, 2010; and 

b) continuing the date for Defendants DataPipe, Inc., Buciak, and Rhodes to 

respond to Plaintiff’s complaint to March 5, 2010; 

WHEREAS the parties 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, the 

initial Case Management Conference, and the date for Defendants DataPipe, Inc., Buciak, and 

Rhodes to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, respectively, for six (6) 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 March 5, 2010 to April 16, 2010;

1

 

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

Plaintiff’s complaint shall be extended to April 16, 2010; and 

c) The initial Case Management Conference shall be continued from March 

12, 2010, to April 23, 2010; 

 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” April 13, 2010 (calculated as three 

days prior to the originally scheduled preliminary injunction hearing). 

Case 5:09-cv-05133-JF Document 42 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING DATE AND INITIAL CMC 

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 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 April 16, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., the date for Defendants DataPipe, Inc., 

Buciak, and Rhodes to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint to April 16, 2010, and the initial Case 

Management Conference to April 23, 2010 at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the Court’s 

calendar permits. 

DATED: February 18, 2010 ONGARO BURTT LLP 

 

 By: /s/ David R. Burtt 

 David R. Burtt 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TIM RHODES 

DATED: February 18, 2010 CMD ASSOCIATES 

By: /s/ C. Matthew Didaleusky 

 C. Matthew Didaleusky 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DAVID BUCIAK 

DATED: February 18, 2010 WILLIAMS PINELLI & CULLEN 

By: /s/ Amy R. Carlson 

 Amy R. Carlson 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CHRISTIAN KOCH 

Case 5:09-cv-05133-JF Document 42 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING DATE AND INITIAL CMC 

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: February 18, 2010 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

By: /s/ Michael J. Nader 

 Michael J. Nader 

Attorneys for Defendant 

DATAPIPE, INC. 

DATED: February 18, 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 

 

2/22/2010

Case 5:09-cv-05133-JF Document 42 Filed 02/22/10 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING DATE AND INITIAL CMC 

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 February 18, 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 42 Filed 02/22/10 Page 5 of 5