Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-05229
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited, Judge Seeborg continued the case-management conference to November 30, 2023.
The scheduling order affected Francesco Corallo, NSO Group Technologies Limited, Q Cyber Technologies Limited, and Apple Inc. by postponing their initial case-management conference.
What happened
In Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited, the parties asked the court to postpone the initial case-management conference because Apple’s and the NSO Defendants’ motions to dismiss were still pending.
The court granted the request and continued the conference from October 19, 2023, to November 30, 2023. The joint case-management statement was due November 22, 2023.
Judge Seeborg entered the order on September 28, 2023. The order changed the conference schedule but did not decide either motion to dismiss or the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- Corallo v. NSO Group Technologies Limited · No. 3:22-cv-05229
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 28, 2023
Background
Francesco Corallo sued NSO Group Technologies Limited, Q Cyber Technologies Limited, and Apple Inc. The parties had previously asked the court several times to continue the initial case-management conference while motions to dismiss remained pending. Apple filed its motion to dismiss on November 4, 2022, and the NSO Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on March 10, 2023. The stipulation states that both motions were fully briefed and remained pending.
Request
The parties jointly requested that the court move the case-management conference, then scheduled for October 19, 2023, to November 30, 2023, or to another date convenient for the court.
Ruling
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Judge Seeborg ordered that the case-management conference be continued until November 30, 2023. The joint case-management conference statement was due November 22, 2023. The order did not rule on either motion to dismiss or resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.