Case3:10-cv-02894-MEJ Document8 Filed09/07/10 Page1 of 3

1 Emily Maxwell (SBN 185646)

HOWREY LLP
2 525 Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, California 94105
3 Telephone: (415) 848-4900
Facsimile: (415) 848-4999
4
Attorneys for Defendants
5 Research 2000 and Delair D. Ali

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 OAKLAND

11 KOS MEDIA, LLC, et al., ) Case No. 10-CV-02894 (MEJ)

)
12 Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND
) SCHEDULE FOR RESPONSIVE
13 vs. ) PLEADING AND ALL DEADLINES SET
) FORTH IN THE ORDER SETTING
14 RESEARCH 2000, et al., ) INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT
) CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES
15 Defendants. )
)
16

17 With the consent of Plaintiffs Kos Media, LLC and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (collectively,

18 “Plaintiffs”), Defendants Research 2000 and Delair D. Ali (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully

19 move for an extension of time of 45 days to file a responsive pleading and to meet the other deadlines

20 set forth in the Court’s June 30, 2010 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR

21 Deadlines (“Case Management Order”). Defendants seek this extension because the parties are

22 working on a settlement which they hope to complete very soon.

23 The parties already have agreed on the basic terms of the settlement, which contemplates a

24 series of actions to be taken by each party over an extended period of time. When Plaintiffs’ counsel

25 alerted the Court to the impending settlement late last week, the Court requested that the parties file

26 their stipulation dismissing the case by September 30, 2010. The terms of the agreement now being

REY LLP 27 negotiated by the parties, however, contemplate the stipulation of dismissal being filed a few weeks

28
Case No. 10-CV-02894 (MEJ)
STIPULTED MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULE
 Case3:10-cv-02894-MEJ Document8 Filed09/07/10 Page2 of 3

1 later than September 30, 2010 which has prompted the request set forth in this motion for a 45 day

2 extension of the schedule established by the Case Management Order.

3 Specifically, under the schedule now being negotiated by the parties, there is a deadline for

4 action which falls within 30 days after the execution of the formal settlement agreement. After that

5 deadline is met, the stipulation of dismissal promptly would be filed. As the settlement agreement is

6 neither final nor executed, this first deadline will likely fall in early October. It is, of course, possible,

7 that the parties may satisfy their respective obligations earlier than the initial 30 day deadline and the

8 stipulation of dismissal could be filed by September 30, 2010. Certainly the parties will make every

9 effort to expedite the performance of their obligations to do so. Out of an abundance of caution,

10 however, the parties seek the 45 day extension to give them sufficient time to finalize and execute the

11 settlement agreement now under negotiation and meet their initial obligations under the terms of that

12 agreement, without responses to a motion to dismiss or the other deadlines set by the Case

13 Management Order competing for their attention. With this additional 45 days, the parties should be

14 able to file a stipulation of dismissal on or before October 25, 2010.

15 In the unlikely event that such a Stipulation of Dismissal is not filed on or before October 25,

16 2010, Defendants will file a responsive pleading on that date, and the parties will satisfy the other

17 deadlines in the Case Management Order according to the time frame established by that order, i.e.,

18 By November 3, 2010, the parties will

19 • meet and confer regarding initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection,
20 and discovery plan

21 • file ADR Certification

22 • file either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference
23 By November 17, 2010, the parties will

24 • file 26(f) Report, complete initial disclosures or state objections in Rule 26(f) Report
25 and file Case Management Statement

26

REY LLP 27

28
Case No. 10-CV-02894 (MEJ) -2-
STIPULTED MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULE
 Case3:10-cv-02894-MEJ Document8 Filed09/07/10 Page3 of 3

1 The parties acknowledge and agree that the Court may reschedule the Initial Case Management

2 Conference for a date of its preference.

3 Dated: September 7, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

4 HOWREY LLP

6
By: /s/Emily Maxwell
7 Emily Maxwell
Attorneys for Defendants
8 Research 2000 and Delair D. Ali

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

REY LLP 27

28
Case No. 10-CV-02894 (MEJ) -3-
STIPULTED MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULE
 Case3:10-cv-02894-MEJ Document8-1 Filed09/07/10 Page1 of 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 OAKLAND

11 KOS MEDIA, LLC, et al., ) Case No. 10-CV-02894 (MEJ)

)
12 Plaintiffs, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER
)
13 vs. )
)
14 RESEARCH 2000, et al., )
)
15 Defendants. )
)
16

17 Upon consideration of Defendants’ MOTION TO EXTEND SCHEDULE FOR

18 RESPONSIVE PLEADING AND ALL DEADLINES SET FORTH IN THE ORDER SETTING

19 INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES, it hereby ORDERED

20 that, if a Stipulation of Dismissal is not filed by October 25, 2010, the case schedule is revised as

21 follows:

22 • October 25, 2010: Defendants will file a responsive pleading

23 • November 3, 2010: the parties will:
24 o meet and confer regarding initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR
process selection, and discovery plan
25
o file ADR Certification
26
o file either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone
REY LLP 27 Conference

28 • November 17, 2010: the parties will

Case No. 10-CV-02894 (MEJ)
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULTED MOTION TO
EXTEND SCHEDULE
 Case3:10-cv-02894-MEJ Document8-1 Filed09/07/10 Page2 of 2

1 o file their 26(f) Reports, complete initial disclosures or state objection in

Rule 26(f) Report and file a Case Management Statement
2
o The Initial Case Management Conference will be rescheduled for
3 _______________, 2010.

4 The Motion is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
_________________________________
7 Honorable Maria Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern
8 District of California
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

REY LLP 27

28
Case No. 10-CV-02894 (MEJ) -2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE STIPULTED MOTION TO
EXTEND SCHEDULE