Opinion
2:07-CV-00331-PMP-PAL
01-02-2013
HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC., and PULSE ELECTRONICS CORP., Defendants.
David E. Sipiora, Pro Hac Vice Kristopher L. Reed, Pro Hac Vice Matthew C. Holohan, Pro Hac Vice KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Kelly Evans, Nevada Bar No. 7691 Swen Prior, Nevada Bar No. 9324 SNELL & WILMER LLP Attorneys for Defendants Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp.
David E. Sipiora, Pro Hac Vice
Kristopher L. Reed, Pro Hac Vice
Matthew C. Holohan, Pro Hac Vice
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Kelly Evans, Nevada Bar No. 7691
Swen Prior, Nevada Bar No. 9324
SNELL & WILMER LLP
Attorneys for Defendants Pulse Electronics,
Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp.
UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO HALO'S MOTION
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
(First Request)
Defendants Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp. (collectively, "Pulse") respectively request an extension of time to respond to Halo's Motion for Permanent Injunction (Docket No. 505) ("Halo's Motion"). Halo's Motion is complex, numbering well over 20 pages in length. Halo also has submitted multiple declarations in support of its Motion, including declarations from both fact and expert witnesses.
In addition, Halo's Motion was filed after 5 pm PST on December 21, 2012 - the Friday night before the Christmas holiday. Furthermore, the response window allowed under LR 7-2(b) also encompasses the New Year holiday. These holidays have negatively impacted Pulse's ability to marshal the factual, expert, and legal resources required to respond fully to Halo's Motion.
Therefore, in order to allow Pulse adequate time to respond fully to Halo's Motion, including obtaining responsive factual and expert declarations as necessary, Pulse respectively requests that the Court extend the deadline for Pulse's response to Halo's Motion to January 18, 2013.
The current response deadline listed on the Court's CM/ECF notice is January 7, 2013.
Per correspondence received from Halo's counsel, Halo does not oppose this request.
Halo's counsel indicated on December 28, 2012, that it consents to this request; however, due to technical issues that rendered the Court's CM/ECF system unavailable for filing this type of request from December 29 through January 1, 2012, Pulse was unable to file the present request until January 2, 2013.
--------
Respectfully submitted,
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
____________
David E. Sipiora, Pro Hac Vice
Kristopher L. Reed, Pro Hac Vice
Matthew C. Holohan, Pro Hac Vice
1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 571-4000
Facsimile: (303) 571-4321
Attorneys for Defendants Pulse Electronics,
Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
___________________
The Honorable Philip M. Pro
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on January 2, 2013, I caused a true and correct copy of UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO HALO'S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION (First Request) to be served electronically through the Clerk of Court's Electronic Case Filing System and ECF will send an email notice of the electronic filing to the following:
Thomas M. Melsheimer
Fish & Richardson P.C.
1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
Dallas, TX 75201
melsheimer@fr.com
William R. Woodford
Michael J. Kane
John C. Adkisson
Fish & Richardson P.C.
60 South Sixth Street
Suite 3300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
woodford@fr.com
kane@fr.com
adkisson@fr.com
Juanita R. Brooks
Fish & Richardson P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
brooks@fr.com
Lori N. Brown
Harmon & Davies, P.C.
1428 S. Jones Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
lbrown@h-dlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc.
Kelly A. Evans
Paul Swenson Prior
Snell & Wilmer LLP
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 1100
Las Vegas, NV 89169
kevans@swlaw.com
sprior@swlaw.com
Attorneys for Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp.
Kristopher L. Reed