Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07610/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07610-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Panoptx, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Protective Optics, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PROTECTIVE OPTICS’ TIME TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CASE NO. C06-7610 MPH

E. Patrick Ellisen, CA Bar No. 142033

ellisenp@gtlaw.com

Daniel T. McCloskey, CA Bar No. 191944

mccloskeyd@gtlaw.com

Jong P. Hong, CA Bar No. 225785

hongj@gtlaw.com

GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

1900 University Avenue 5th Floor

East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Telephone: (650) 328-8500

Facsimile: (650) 328-8508

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant,

PROTECTIVE OPTICS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

PANOPTX, INC. a California corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PROTECTIVE OPTICS, INC., et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-7610 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXTENDING BY THREE

DAYS PROTECTIVE OPTICS’ TIME

TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept: Courtroom 15, 18th Floor

Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Panoptx, Inc. (“Panoptx”) and Defendant and

Counterclaimant Protective Optics, Inc. (“Protective”) by and through their undersigned counsel,

state and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, on June 25, 2007, Protective filed its motion for summary judgment (the

“Motion”), which motion is now scheduled for hearing on September 24, 2007;

WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, pursuant to stipulation, this Court reset the briefing

schedule on the Motion to extend the deadline for Panoptx’s opposition to August 6, 2007, and

Case 3:06-cv-07610-MHP Document 28 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PROTECTIVE OPTICS’ TIME TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CASE NO. C06-7610 MPH

the deadline for Protective Optics’ reply brief to August 13, 2007 (see Dkt. No. 26);

WHEREAS, a scheduling conflict has arisen which affects the availability of Panoptx’s

counsel and expert during the week of August 6 which would be alleviated if Protective were

allowed an additional three days, to August 16, to file its reply brief;

WHEREAS, counsel for Protective and Panoptx have met and conferred regarding this

extension;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties to this

action, by and through their respective counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the Court,

that the deadline for Protective Optics to file its reply brief should be extended until August 16,

2007, and the September 24, 2007 hearing date should remain the same.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: July 17, 2007 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

By: _______________/s/______________________

Daniel T. McCloskey

Attorneys for Defendant and

Counterclaimant, PROTECTIVE OPTICS, INC.

Dated: July 17, 2007 KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP

By: _______________/s/______________________

Michael D. Lisi

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant

PANOPTX, INC.

I hereby attest that I have been authorized by Michael D. Lisi to execute on his behalf this

Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Extending By Three Days Protective Optics’ Time To Reply In

Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment.

Executed on this 17th day of July, 2007 at San Francisco, California.

_______________/s/______________________

Daniel T. McCloskey

Case 3:06-cv-07610-MHP Document 28 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PROTECTIVE OPTICS’ TIME TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CASE NO. C06-7610 MPH

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated:

HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

July 19, 2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:06-cv-07610-MHP Document 28 Filed 07/19/07 Page 3 of 3