United States District CourtFor the Northern District of California1
The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances
underlying the present motion.
As this court explained in its prior order, pursuant to the San Jose Division’s Standing
Order Regarding Case Management in Civil Cases, “All disclosure or discovery disputes in cases
assigned to district judges are referred to the assigned magistrate judge for determination pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).” Because the present motion primarily relates to a dispute regarding the timing of
depositions, the motion falls within that referral.
The parties apparently disagree regarding whether Judge Ware’s order allows Defendant
to depose both Plaintiffs. By using the term “and/or,” the order authorizes Defendant to take one or both
depositions. Nothing in the order allows Plaintiffs to unilaterally limit Defendant to just one deposition.
ORDER, page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
CLRB HANSON INDUSTRIES dba
INDUSTRIAL PRINTING, et al.,
Case No.: C 05-3649 JW PVT
ORDER RE DEFENDANT GOOGLE,
INC.’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME
AND CLARIFY COURT ORDER
On July 26, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Enlarge Time and Clarify Court Order.1
Plaintiffs opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, this court2 finds
it appropriate to issue this order without oral argument. Based on the moving and opposition papers,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART. For good cause shown, the deadline for Defendant to depose both Plaintiffs3 is extended
to and including August 17, 2006. Defendant adequately showed that an extension of time is
Case 5:05-cv-03649-JW Document 72 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 1 of 2
CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc.