Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06575/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06575-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark 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

BILL ROMANOWSKI,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-6575 PJH

v. ORDER

RNI, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is a second request for an extension of dates with respect to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The original hearing date was continued due to

a conflict in defense counsel’s schedule. Based on the new date, plaintiff’s opposition brief

is due December 26, 2007, a date plaintiff can apparently meet. Defendants’ reply brief is

due January 2, 2007, but defense counsel requests a two-day enlargement of this deadline

because of his holiday plans. He instead would like to file the reply brief on January 14,

2008, which he believes, “should provide the Court with sufficient time to review all of the

briefing in advance of the January 16, 2008 hearing.”

The Local Rules for the Northern District of California require that reply briefs be filed

fourteen days in advance of the hearing for a reason. It might surprise defendants’ counsel

to know that defendants’ motion is not the only matter on this court’s very busy calendar for

January 16, 2008, nor is it the only matter needing this court’s attention during the first few

weeks of the new year. And while the days remaining, should the continuance be granted,

may be sufficient for a review of the briefs, the court assumes that defendants expect that

the court will review the numerous exhibits that they have submitted as well. Counsel for

defendants is advised that it is for the court, not him, to determine how to manage its

Case 4:06-cv-06575-PJH Document 63 Filed 11/30/07 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

docket.

Nonetheless, the court will grant the request. Defendants should, however, not

expect similar accommodations in the future.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06575-PJH Document 63 Filed 11/30/07 Page 2 of 2