Centrify Corp. v. Quest Software, Inc.

Full title: CENTRIFY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. QUEST SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Oct 6, 2011

Case No. 4:11-cv-4675-DMR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 4:11-cv-4675-DMR

10-06-2011

CENTRIFY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. QUEST SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant.

COOLEY LLP THOMAS J. FRIEL, JR. (80065) WAYNE O. STACY ( pro hac vice pending) ORION ARMON ( pro hac vice pending) COOLEY LLP Attorneys for Defendant Quest Software, Inc. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP Edward V. Anderson (State Bar No. 83148) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CENTRIFY CORP.

Donna M. Ryu

COOLEY LLP

THOMAS J. FRIEL, JR. (80065)

WAYNE O. STACY (pro hac vice pending)

ORION ARMON (pro hac vice pending)

COOLEY LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Quest Software, Inc.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND ANSWER DEADLINE FOR QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.

Plaintiff Centrify Corp. and Defendant Quest Software, Inc., by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to a thirty-day extension of time for Quest Software to move, answer, or otherwise respond to Centrify's Complaint, up to and including November 17, 2011.

COOLEY LLP

Thomas J. Friel, Jr. (State Bar No. 80065)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

Edward V. Anderson (State Bar No. 83148)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CENTRIFY CORP.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED:

The Honorable Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

ATTESTATION CLAUSE

I, Thomas J. Friel, Jr., hereby attest in accordance with General Order No. 45.X(B) that Edward V. Anderson, counsel for Plaintiff Centrify Corp., has provided his concurrence with the electronic filing of the foregoing document entitled STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND ANSWER DEADLINE.

Thomas J. Friel, Jr.