Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01501/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01501-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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 

MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL DATES AND TRIAL DATE 

CHRISTOPHER L. WANGER (CA Bar No. 164751) 

RYAN S. HILBERT (CA Bar No. 210549) 

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 

1001 Page Mill Road, Building 2 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1006 

Telephone: (650) 812-1300 

Facsimile: (650) 213-0260 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, 

PORTRAIT DISPLAYS, INC. and Counterdefendants, J. MICHAEL 

JAMES and JAMES CASEY 

MICHAEL T. WELCH (CA Bar No. 122630) 

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. WELCH 

Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1150 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 765-4648 

Facsimile: (415) 399-3006 

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants, 

BRYAN SPEECE, ASHLEY SALDANHA AND ENTECH TAIWAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

PORTRAIT DISPLAYS, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

BRYAN SPEECE, ASHLEY 

SALDANHA and ENTECH TAIWAN 

Defendants. 

Case No.: C 04 1501 RMW PVT 

STIPULATION AND 

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN 

CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF PORTRAIT 

DISPLAYS, INC., CONTINUING 

HEARING ON DEFENDANT BRYAN 

SPEECE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

MOTION, AND CONTINUING PRETRIAL DATES AND TRIAL DATE BY 

APPROXIMATELY 30 DAYS 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

WHEREAS the parties in this case have been conducting settlement discussions 

over the last several months, including two settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge 

Trumbull, which have resulted in a signed settlement agreement between Portrait 

*E-FILED - 6/29/05*

Case 5:04-cv-01501-RMW Document 73 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 4
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 

MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 2

STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL DATES AND TRIAL DATE 

Displays, Inc. (“PDI”), J. Michael James (“James”) and James Casey (“Casey”), on the 

one hand, and Ashley Saldanha and EnTech Taiwan, on the other hand, pursuant to which 

these settling parties have agreed to file dismissals of all of their claims and counterclaims 

against each other, which dismissals will be on file shortly; 

WHEREAS, the only remaining unsettled claims are PDI’s claims against Bryan 

Speece and Speece’s counterclaims against PDI, James and Casey; 

WHEREAS, Speece filed on June 1, 2005 a motion seeking summary judgment of 

all of PDI’s claims against him and filed additional related papers on June 6, 2005, which 

motion is presently set for hearing on July 8, 2005; 

WHEREAS, as a result of the settlement agreement PDI reached with EnTech and 

Saldanha, PDI is willing, in exchange for a waiver of fees and costs from Speece, to 

dismiss the following claims in PDI’s complaint against Speece: (1) the First Claim for 

Relief for Copyright Infringement; (2) the Fourth Claim for Relief for Misappropriation of 

Trade Secrets; (3) the Fifth Claim for Relief for Intentional Interference with Contract, 

and (4) the Sixth Claim for Relief for Unfair Competition; 

WHEREAS, the dismissal referenced above will significantly narrow the issues to 

be decided on summary judgment; 

WHEREAS, PDI contends that it needs additional discovery to oppose Speece’s 

summary judgment motion on PDI’s remaining claims, including Speece’s deposition and 

additional document production, and further contends that it requires a 30-day 

continuance of the July 8 hearing date on Speece’s summary judgment motion in order to 

complete such discovery; 

WHEREAS, Speece does not oppose a continuance of the hearing date on his 

motion for summary judgment to August 12, 2005; 

WHEREAS, PDI intends to file its own motion for summary judgment and/or 

adjudication which, in the interest of judicial economy, PDI also seeks to set for August 

12, 2005; 

Case 5:04-cv-01501-RMW Document 73 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 4
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 

MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 3

STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL DATES AND TRIAL DATE 

WHEREAS, Speece intends to seek a remand of this action to state court based on 

PDI’s dismissal of its copyright infringement claim and intends to file a motion for 

remand which the parties agree also should be heard on or before August 12, 2005; 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the trial date in this matter should be continued 

approximately 30 days to October 31, 2005 to allow the court the opportunity to hear the 

parties’ summary judgment and remand motions; 

WHEREAS, this is the second request for modification of the schedule in this 

matter; 

WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that the following claims in PDI’s 

complaint shall be dismissed: (1) the First Claim for Relief for Copyright Infringement; 

(2) the Fourth Claim for Relief for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; (3) the Fifth Claim 

for Relief for Intentional Interference with Contract; and (4) the Sixth Claim for Relief for 

Unfair Competition. The parties further stipulate and agree that each party shall bear its 

or his own fees and costs, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, incurred in 

connection with such claims. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the 

parties through their respective counsel, that the hearing on Speece’s summary judgment 

motion presently set for July 8, 2005 is continued to August 12, 2005. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the 

parties through their respective counsel, that the Pre-Trial Preparation Order Deadlines be 

extended by approximately 30 days as further set forth below. 

Dated: June 14, 2005 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 

By: s/ Christopher L. Wanger 

 Christopher L. Wanger 

 Attorneys for 

 Portrait Displays, Inc., J. Michael James 

 and James Casey

Case 5:04-cv-01501-RMW Document 73 Filed 06/29/05 Page 3 of 4
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 

MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES 4

STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL DATES AND TRIAL DATE 

Dated: June 14, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. WELCH 

By: s/ Michael T. Welch 

 Michael T. Welch 

 Attorneys for 

 Bryan Speece, EnTech Taiwan and 

 Ashley Saldanha 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, 

Christopher L. Wanger hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has 

been obtained. 

ORDER

 Pursuant to stipulation and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following claims in PDI’s complaint shall be 

dismissed: (1) the First Claim for Relief for Copyright Infringement; (2) the Fourth Claim 

for Relief for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; (3) the Fifth Claim for Relief for 

Intentional Interference with Contract, and (4) the Sixth Claim for Relief for Unfair 

Competition. Each party shall bear its or his own fees and costs, including but not limited 

to attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with such claims. 

 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on Speece’s summary 

judgment motion presently set for July 8, 2005 is continued to August 12, 2005. 

 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the following deadlines will apply in 

this case: 

 Joint Pre-Trial Statement Due October 11, 2005 

 Pre-Trial Conference October 20, 2005 

 Jury Trial Date October 31, 2005 

Dated: Honorable Ronald M. Whyte 

United States District Judge 

20135848.1 

6/29/05 /S/ RONALD M. WHYTE

Case 5:04-cv-01501-RMW Document 73 Filed 06/29/05 Page 4 of 4