In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name Likeness Licensing Litigation

Filing 79

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR ANTITRUST 78 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE. Responses due by 8/29/2012. Replies due by 9/2/2012. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/24/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME AND LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION, No. C 09-1967 CW No. MC 11-80300 CW No. MC 12-80020 CW 6 ________________________________/ ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR ANTITRUST PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California On August 21, 2012, Antitrust Plaintiffs filed a motion 11 requesting relief from non-dispositive pretrial orders entered by 12 a Magistrate Judge on February 27, 2012 and August 7, 2012, in 13 which the Magistrate Judge issued sanctions against Antitrust 14 Plaintiffs related to their subpoenas requesting documents from 15 nonparties The Big Ten Conference, The Big Ten Network and Fox 16 Broadcasting Company.1 17 18 19 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Antitrust Plaintiffs previously timely filed a motion for relief from the February 27, 2012 order. On March 19, 2012, the Court set a briefing schedule on their first motion for relief. In the February 27, 2012 order, the Magistrate Judge gave The Big Ten Conference, The Big Ten Network and Fox Broadcasting Company leave to file a motion for sanctions against Antitrust Plaintiffs, and they subsequently did so. After noting that, in their opposition to the motions for sanctions, Antitrust Plaintiffs had raised before the Magistrate Judge many of the same arguments that they made in their motion for relief and sought the same relief, the Court denied Antitrust Plaintiffs’ motion for relief without prejudice to renewal after the Magistrate Judge had ruled on the pending motions for sanctions. The Magistrate Judge did so in the August 7, 2012 order, and Plaintiffs filed the instant motion thereafter. 1 2 3 Pursuant to Local Rule 72-2, the Court hereby sets a briefing schedule for this motion as follows: Fox Broadcasting Company, The Big Ten Conference and The Big 4 Ten Network may each file an opposition to Antitrust Plaintiffs’ 5 second motion for relief, of five pages or less within five days 6 of the date of this order. 7 of three pages or less, to each opposition within three days 8 thereafter. 9 Big Ten Conference and The Big Ten Network need not repeat the Antitrust Plaintiffs may file a reply, Antitrust Plaintiffs, Fox Broadcasting Company, The United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 same arguments made in their briefing related to Antitrust 11 Plaintiffs’ first motion for relief. 12 13 14 The Court will decide Antitrust Plaintiffs’ second motion for relief on the papers. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 Dated: 8/24/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2