Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00045/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00045-4/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 1

Docket No. 63.

2

Docket No. 66. (Ordering that on October 27, 2006, pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the parties shall make initial disclosures of all materials that are relevant to Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss brought

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2).)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR D. SULIT,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT., ET AL.

Defendants. /

No. C06-00045 MJJ

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND

ORDERING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

Before the Court is Defendants Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation, Innovative

Multimedia Solutions LLC, Derek Slep, Kurt Slep, and Jonathan Banks’ (collectively “Defendants”)

Combined Motion to Strike and Renewed Motion to Dismiss.1

 Plaintiff Arthur D. Sulit (“Plaintiff”

or “Sulit”) opposes the motion. The matter is scheduled for hearing on November 7, 2006.

In Plaintiff’s Opposition brief, Plaintiff claims that the timing of the Court’s Discovery

Order2 caused Plaintiff to oppose the pending motions “without the benefit of either the Rule

26(a)(1) initial disclosures, or the initial disclosures of materials relevant to the pending dismissal

requests.” (Plaintiff’s Opposition, 2:20-22.)

To assist the Court in resolving the pending motions and to afford Plaintiff a reasonable

opportunity to present and argue all relevant materials received pursuant to the Court’s Discovery

Case 3:06-cv-00045-MMC Document 71 Filed 11/03/06 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

Order, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing set for November 7, 2006 and ORDERS as

follows:

Plaintiff shall file a Supplemental Opposition Brief, not exceeding 5 pages in length,

addressing only those new arguments arising from the materials produced by Defendants pursuant to

the Court’s Discovery Order. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Opposition Brief shall be filed by November

6, 2006. Defendants may file a Responsive Supplemental Reply Brief, not exceeding 5 pages, by

November 8, 2006. Defendants shall limit their discussion only to the specific issues raised in

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Opposition Brief and shall not present new arguments to the Court. The

matter is set for hearing on November 14, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00045-MMC Document 71 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 2