Opinion
Case No. C-08-02658-RMW (HRL)
10-20-2011
M.A. MOBILE LTD., a limited liability company chartered in Dominica; and MANDANA D. FARHANG, Plaintiff, v. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR, an Indian Institute of Technology incorporated under the "Institutes of Technology Act, 1961"; TECHNOLOGY ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND TRAINING SOCIETY, an Indian society; PARTHA P. CHAKRABARTI; RAKESH GUPTA; PRAVANJAN CHOUDHRY; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP James E. Thompson Attorneys for Defendants' Counsel Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP SANJIV N. SINGH, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Sanjiv N. Singh Attorneys for Plaintiffs MANDANA D. FARHANG AND M.A. MOBILE LTD.
WILLIAM F. ALDERMAN (SBN 47381)
JAMES E. THOMPSON (SBN 240979)
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
Attorneys for Defendants' Counsel
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
STIPULATION AND []
ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR NON
DISQUALIFICATION OF ORRICK,
HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
Time: 9:00 am
Judge: Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2011, Ornck, Hernngton & Sutcliffe ("Orrick") brought a Motion for Order Determining Nondisqualification in the event it were to hire potential lateral associate Jeffrey McKenna to work in its e-discovery group;
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2011, Plaintiffs opposed that Motion, but indicated, among other things, that they would not seek to disqualify Orrick based upon Mr. McKenna's employment provided that Orrick agrees to maintain an appropriate ethical wall (the terms of which are proposed to be filed with and approved by the Court pursuant to an appropriate stipulation) and provided that no further information is revealed to Plaintiffs which would otherwise require disqualification;
WHEREAS, the deadline for Orrick's Reply in support of the Motion for Order Determining Nondisqualification ("Reply") is currently September 14, 2011;
WHEREAS, the parties are currently engaged in discussions regarding the potential ethical wall and related issues and may be able to stipulate to a proposed ethical wall;
WHEREAS, to provide sufficient time for the parties to attempt to resolve this issue informally, Orrick has requested that the deadline for the Reply be extended until September 21, 2011 and Plaintiffs are willing to grant said extension;
WHEREAS, the September 30, 2011 hearing and all other deadlines shall remain in place and the proposed revised briefing schedule shall apply only to Orrick's reply to the above referenced motion and will not materially delay the disposition of the case before the Court;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between undersigned counsel, subject to approval of the Court, that:
1. Orrick's Reply will be due on or before September 21, 2011.
2. The September 30, 2011 hearing and all other deadlines shall remain in place.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
James E. Thompson
Attorneys for Defendants' Counsel
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
SANJIV N. SINGH, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
CORPORATION
Sanjiv N. Singh
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MANDANA D. FARHANG
AND M.A. MOBILE LTD.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge