Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

RESPONSE to NETFLIX'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S MAY 1, 2007 ORDER

N.D. Cal.May 7, 2007

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 NETFLIX’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S MAY 1, 2007 ORDER CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS) 394919.01 KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP JEFFREY R. CHANIN - #103649 DARALYN J. DURIE - #169825 ASHOK RAMANI - #200020 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1704 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Attorneys for Plaintiff NETFLIX, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, DOES 1-50, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS Case No. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS) NETFLIX’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S MAY 1, 2007 ORDER Complaint filed: April 4, 2006 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 204 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 2 Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. Doc. 204 Dockets.Justia.com 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 NETFLIX’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S MAY 1, 2007 ORDER CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA (JCS) 394919.01 Netflix respectfully submits this response to the Court’s May 1, 2007 Order requesting input on page limits for summary judgment motions: Netflix has no objection to the proposed limitations set forth in the Court’s May 1, 2007 Order. Dated: May 7, 2007 Respectfully submitted, KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP By: _____/s/ Eugene M. Paige___________ Eugene M. Paige Attorneys for Plaintiff NETFLIX, INC. Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 204 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 2 of 2