Re: PACER
in response to
by
posted on
Jan 19, 2010 11:54PM
Did a random sampling of five motions for extensions of time to file an answer to EDIG's complaint. Checked these companies: Marantz, Coby, Canon USA, HTC America, Kyocera Wireless. Of these motions, Marantz, Coby, Canon USA had no settlement language in their motion. However, HTC America and Kyocera Wireless did (see Docs 40 and 42 below). These two companies have the same law firm representing them (Featherstone Petrie DeSisto LLP). As a side note, Featherstone is representing 16 of the remaining 32 companies...interesting to say the least.
---------------------
Doc 40:
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”) and Defendant HTC America, Inc., (“HTC America”), by and through their counsel, respectfully move the Court for an extension of time for HTC America to respond to e.Digital’s Complaint, and in support thereof state as follows: 1. HTC America was served with e.Digital’s Complaint on December 8, 2009. HTC America’s current deadline to respond to the Complaint is December 29, 2009. 2. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1A, counsel for HTC America conferred with counsel for e.Digital regarding obtaining an extension of time to respond to the Complaint, whereupon counsel for e.Digital agreed to an extension of the response date to February 15, 2010. 3. Obtaining an extension of time will allow the parties to explore the possibility of settlement of this dispute. 4. No extension of time has been requested for HTC America prior to this motion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff e.Digital and Defendant HTC America respectfully request an extension of time until February 15, 2010 for HTC America to respond to the Complaint. Dated: December 29, 2009 ----------------------
Doc 42:
STIPULATED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”) and Defendant Kyocera Wireless, Inc. (“Kyocera Wireless”), by and through their counsel, respectfully move the Court for an extension of time for Kyocera Wireless to respond to e.Digital’s Complaint, and in support thereof state as follows: 1. Kyocera Wireless was served with e.Digital’s Complaint on December 8, 2009. Kyocera Wireless’ current deadline to respond to the Complaint is December 29, 2009. 2. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1A, counsel for Kyocera Wireless conferred with counsel for e.Digital regarding obtaining an extension of time to respond to the Complaint, whereupon counsel for e.Digital agreed to an extension of the response date to February 15, 2010. 3. Obtaining an extension of time will allow the parties to explore the possibility of settlement of this dispute. 4. No extension of time has been requested for Kyocera Wireless prior to this motion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff e.Digital and Defendant Kyocera Wireless respectfully request an extension of time until February 15, 2010 for Kyocera Wireless to respond to the Complaint. Dated: December 29, 2009.