Neoconix, Inc.
v.
R&D Circuits, Inc.

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADec 4, 2012
Case No. 12-cv-06153 MEJ (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012)

Case No. 12-cv-06153 MEJ

12-04-2012

NEOCONIX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. R&D CIRCUITS, INC., a New Jersey corporation; R&D SOCKETS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants.

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP STUART L. GASNER - # 164675 AJAY S. KRISHNAN - # 222476 H. SAVALA NOLAN - #284212 Attorneys for Plaintiff NEOCONIX, INC. HARVEY SISKIND LLP Naomi Jane Gray Attorneys for Defendants R&D CIRCUITS, INC., and R&D SOCKETS, INC. WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP John W. Caldwell Erich Falke ( pro hac vice pending)


KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
STUART L. GASNER - # 164675
AJAY S. KRISHNAN - # 222476
H. SAVALA NOLAN - #284212
Attorneys for Plaintiff NEOCONIX, INC. HARVEY SISKIND LLP
Naomi Jane Gray
Attorneys for Defendants R&D CIRCUITS, INC.,
and R&D SOCKETS, INC.
WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP
John W. Caldwell
Erich Falke
(pro hac vice pending)


STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE 90-DAY STAY OF ALL CASE

DEADLINES [CIVIL L.R. 7-11 AND 7-12]


Trial Date: None Set

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Neoconix, Inc., and Defendants R&D Circuits, Inc., and R&D Sockets, Inc., (collectively, "the Parties") desire a sufficient period of time in which to negotiate, evaluate their respective positions, and meet and confer regarding their respective patent claims, by and through counsel, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree to a 90-day stay of all case management and related deadlines.

THEREFORE, subject to the Court's approval, the Parties agree and stipulate as follows:

All proceedings in this case, including but not limited to discovery, shall be stayed for 90 days. Upon expiration of the 90-day stay, the parties shall file a joint status report for the Court's review.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Item or Matter ¦Original Deadline ¦Extended Deadline ¦ +-----------------------------+-------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Plaintiffs' Response to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Defendants' Answer and ¦March 1, 2013 ¦May 30, 2013 ¦ ¦Counterclaims ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------+-------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦File consent/declination to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proceed before a United ¦February 28, 2013 ¦June 7, 2013 ¦ ¦States Magistrate Judge ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------+-------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦Meet and confer regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦initial disclosures, early ¦February 14, 2013 ¦June 14, 2013 ¦ ¦settlement, ADR process ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦selection, and discovery plan¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------+-------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦File ADR certification, ¦ ¦June 14, 2013, unless ¦ ¦Stipulation to the ADR ¦ ¦parties jointly request ¦ ¦Process, and/or Notice for ¦February 14, 2013 ¦assignment to particular ¦ ¦ADR Phone Conference ¦ ¦ADR process prior to May ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦15, 2013 ¦ +-----------------------------+-------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦File reports and complete ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦initial disclosures or state ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦objections pursuant to ¦February 28, 2013 ¦June 28, 2013 ¦ ¦Federal Rule of Civil ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Procedure 26(f) ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------+-------------------+---------------------------¦ ¦File Initial Case Management ¦February 28, 2013 ¦June 28, 2013 ¦ ¦Statement ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Initial Case ¦ ¦___ at___ ¦ ¦Management ¦March ¦ ¦ ¦Conference ¦7, 2013¦a.m/p.m. [a date and time on or after July 12, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦2013, that the Court deems appropriate] ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Respectfully submitted,

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

By: __________


STUART L. GASNER


AJAY S. KRISHNAN


H. SAVALA NOLAN


Attorneys for Plaintiff NEOCONIX, INC.

HARVEY SISKIND LLP


WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP


By: __________


Naomi Jane Gray


Attorney for Defendants R&D CIRCUITS,


INC., and R&D SOCKETS, INC.


ATTORNEY ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE

I hereby attest that I have obtained Federal Defendants' concurrence in this filing, indicated by the signature of Federal Defendants' counsel represented by a "conformed" signature ("/s/") within this e-filed document.

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

By: __________


STUART L. GASNER

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED

All case management and related deadlines are STAYED for 90 days. The parties shall file a joint status report at the end of the 90 day stay.

______________


Honorable Maria-Elena James


United States Magistrate Judge