Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

*E-FILED 4/6/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYNAPSIS, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS, INC. et al,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-1524 JF (RS)

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

ON MOTION TO COMPEL

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel, presently scheduled to be heard on April 11,

2007. Defendants’ opposition to the motion was not timely-filed, because defendant “was under the

mistaken belief that this Motion had never made it on to this Court’s calendar.” It appears that at

least up until the time the opposition was filed, the meet and confer efforts between the parties to

address the issues raised by the motion were inadequate, despite the fact that the Court had expressly

noted the need for such efforts in its order filed on March 8, 2007, denying plaintiff’s request for an

order shortening time. It also appears that many, if not most, of the issues raised by the motion may

have now been resolved. Plaintiff, however, has not filed a reply brief. Accordingly, the record is

such that the Court cannot effectively determine the scope of matters remaining in dispute or

evaluate the extent to which any such remaining disputes should be resolved through further meet

and confer efforts rather than by Court intervention.

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 249 Filed 04/06/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Therefore, good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The hearing on the motion to compel is continued to May 2, 2007.

2. The parties shall engage in further meet and confer negotiations forthwith to attempt to

resolve any disputes that may remain.

3. Should such meet and confer efforts fail to resolve all remaining disputes, plaintiff shall

file its reply brief no later than April 20, 2007, and shall clearly state therein which issues remain to

be decided.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 249 Filed 04/06/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER WAS ELECTRONICALLY

PROVIDED TO:

William Shibly Akel wmakel@counterstrike.com

Daniel C. DeCarlo decarlo@lbbslaw.com, kkim@lbbslaw.com; pink@lbbslaw.com;

creyes@lbbslaw.com

Manuel Albert Martinez MMartinez@steinlubin.com, msaephan@steinlubin.com

William Karl Mills mills@pmmlaw.com, mills@pacbell.net

Jonathan S. Pink pink@lbbslaw.com, creyes@lbbslaw.com

Michael Navid Radparvar radparvar@lbbslaw.com,

Jeffrey F. Sax jsax@saxlaw.net

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Dated: April 6, 2007

 /s/ BAK 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 249 Filed 04/06/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 249 Filed 04/06/07 Page 4 of 4