Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03050/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03050-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANI SUBRAMANIAN,

Plaintiff,

 V

QAD INC, WILLIAM D CONNELL, AND

DOES 1-50

Defendants.

 /

No C 06-3050 VRW

Related to case no 

C-04-1249 

ORDER

On September 6, 2007, the court entered an order denying

plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief. Doc #127. Therein,

the court noted that the settlement conference before Magistrate

Judge Chen had been reported as unsuccessful. Id. Accordingly,

the court ordered the parties to appear for a case management

conference (“CMC”), which is now scheduled for October 11, 2007 at

3:30pm. Id; Doc #128. The court also instructed plaintiff that he

was not to file any further papers in this action prior to the CMC

without first obtaining leave of court. Doc #127.

Case 3:06-cv-03050-VRW Document 130 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 3
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

On September 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for

leave to file three categories of documents prior to the CMC. Doc

#129. Plaintiff lists his requested filings as follows:

1. Applications/stipulations foreseen in the Court’s case

management order * * *;

2. A request for telephonic appearance at the CMC;

3. A letter to Judge Chen (the settlement Judge) requesting

official confirmation of the procedural clarifications

and recommendations provided by him after the settlement

conference failed, and which were the basis for the

miscellaneous application filed by plaintiff after the

settlement conference, * * *

 Doc #129. Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

Regarding plaintiff’s first request, plaintiff fails to

specify what “applications/stipulations” he seeks to file. Second,

regarding plaintiff’s request for telephonic appearance at the CMC,

plaintiff fails to establish that he is unable to appear in person. 

Plaintiff resides in this district and filed his action in this

court. Accordingly, the court finds no grounds to excuse plaintiff

from attending court proceedings in person. Third, regarding

plaintiff’s request for a letter of clarification to Judge Chen,

plaintiff fails to establish that the issues relating to his

proposed letter must be resolved prior to the CMC. The court has

already given plaintiff leave to file a case management statement. 

Plaintiff is free to report on the status of the case, including

proceedings before Judge Chen, in his statement, and the court will

address any issues that it deems necessary at the CMC.

\\

\\

\\

\\

Case 3:06-cv-03050-VRW Document 130 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Finally, the court reminds plaintiff of its June 22, 2005

order warning that plaintiff will be sanctioned $1000 per page for

any frivolous motions or other filings worthy of FRCP 11 sanctions. 

See doc #163 in 04-1249 VRW.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03050-VRW Document 130 Filed 09/25/07 Page 3 of 3