Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04731/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04731-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

* E-filed 1/24/08 *

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYMANTEC CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STORAGECRAFT TECHNOLOGY CORP.,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. CV 07-04731 JW (HRL)

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION

TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Docket No. 52

Defendant StorageCraft Technology ("SCT") moves to shorten time on a concurrently

filed Motion for a Protective Order. [Docket Nos. 52, 54]. The concurrent motion deals with a

third party subpoena served by Symantec on a law firm seeking production of documents

related to a separate SCT litigation. The deadline for complying with that subpoena is January

25, 2008. Thus, SCT seeks to halt the third party production by shortening the time for hearing

the protective order motion, or through an order staying compliance with the subpoena until the

protective order motion is decided. 

Plaintiff Symantec's response to the motion to shorten time indicates that the third party

might not comply with the subpoena until the motion for a protective order is resolved. [Docket

No. 62]. Further, Symantec notes that it does not object to the court hearing that motion on an

abbreviated schedule. 

Case 5:07-cv-04731-JW Document 71 Filed 01/24/08 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

Based on the foregoing, the court orders as follows: 

Compliance with the subject subpoena is STAYED pending resolution of SCT's Motion

for a Protective Order. 

With this stay in place, there does not appear to be any pressing urgency to decide this

matter, especially since this case is in its relative infancy. Furthermore, the temporary stay

adequately protects the legitimate interests of all concerned. However, since both parties seek

to have the motion resolved quickly, the Motion to Shorten Time is GRANTED. The following

briefing schedule shall now apply to the protective order motion:

Plaintiff's Opposition due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 28, 2008

Defendant's Reply Brief (if any) due . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 4, 2008

Hearing on Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order . . . Feb. 12, 2008 at 10:00 a.m.

Finally, the parties are ORDERED to ensure that they have complied with Civil Local

Rule 5-1(b) in providing this chambers with a copy of the motion, briefs, and supporting papers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/24/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-04731-JW Document 71 Filed 01/24/08 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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Dickson H Burton , Sr hdburton@traskbritt.com, LMondragon@traskbritt.com,

TLPalfreyman@traskbritt.com 

Edgar R. Cataxinos , Sr ercataxinos@traskbritt.com 

Kimberly Ann Donovan kdonovan@gcalaw.com, ternst@gcalaw.com 

Paul Singh Grewal pgrewal@daycasebeer.com, shall@daycasebeer.com 

William Patrick Nelson wnelson@daycasebeer.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 1/24/08 

 /s/ KRO 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:07-cv-04731-JW Document 71 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 3