Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04161/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04161-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Quantum Corporation
Counter-claimant
Riverbed Technology, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUANTUM CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant. /

RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Counterclaimaint,

 v.

QUANTUM CORPORATION,

Counter defendant. /

No. C 07-04161 WHA

REQUEST FOR INPUT

RE ORAL ARGUMENT

Now that the pending motion has been fully briefed, one question is whether to rule on

the papers or to hold oral argument. In making this call, the Court invites input from counsel on

whether oral argument would be beneficial, most particularly on whether a lawyer with less

than five years of experience (including any clerkship) will argue the motion. The Court is

concerned that junior attorneys are being denied the argument opportunities that they deserve

and are ready to perform. In the Court’s experience, such lawyers have performed exceedingly

well and assigning them the chief role on a motion they have briefed, even in “high stakes”

Case 3:07-cv-04161-WHA Document 63 Filed 01/25/08 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

litigation, is to be encouraged, even if it cannot be required. Please respond by NOON ON

JANUARY 31, 2008, in two pages or less. Please do not use this as an opportunity to add

additional points on the merits. 

Dated: January 25, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-04161-WHA Document 63 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 2