"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"
ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 323 Case Management Statement. Signed by Judge James Ware on 2/17/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2010)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation / Stacie Somers, Plaintiff, v. Apple, Inc. Defendant. / This case is scheduled for a Case Management Conference on February 22, 2010. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of this Court, the parties conferred and duly submitted a Joint Case Management Statement. (hereafter, "Statement," Docket Item No. 323.) A. Direct Purchaser Action Pursuant to the Court's request, Direct Purchaser Action Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint on January 26, 2010. (See Docket Item No. 322.) Defendant's responsive pleading is due February 22, 2010, and Defendant represents that it will file a dispositive motion by that date with a hearing date noticed for April 26, 2010. (Statement at 1.) In light of Defendant's anticipated dispositive motion, the Court finds good cause to VACATE the Case Management Conference pending consideration of that motion. NO. C 05-00037 JW NO. C 07-06507 JW ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; DENYING AS PREMATURE INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In their Statement, the parties bring to the Court's attention an ongoing discovery dispute. Defendant asks the Court to stay certain discovery until after its dispositive Motion is decided. (Statement at 6.) The Court declines Defendant's request. As the Court has already made clear in its prior Orders in this case and its statement on the record at the November 23, 2009 hearing on the parties' various class certification motions, Plaintiffs may proceed with discovery at this time. The parties shall bring any discovery disputes before Judge Lloyd. The Court declines to interfere with Judge Lloyd's decisions regarding the briefing and hearing schedule for Plaintiffs' motion to compel. B. Indirect Purchaser Action In its December 29, 2009 Order,1 the Court ordered the Indirect Purchaser Action Plaintiff to show cause, if any, why her case should not be dismissed since the basis for a separate action, namely, indirect purchasers of iPods, is no longer viable in light of the Court's denial of certification of the damages class. The Court stated that once the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs amend their pleadings to add remedies also sought by the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff, it appears that the Indirect Purchaser Action will become unnecessary. (Id. at 11-12.) On February 1, 2010, the Indirect Purchaser Action Plaintiff filed a Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. (See Docket Item No. 91.) On February 12, 2010, the Indirect Purchaser Action Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. (hereafter, "Motion for Leave," Docket Item No. 92.) In light of the pending Order to Show Cause re Dismissal, the Court finds that consideration of the Motion for Leave would be premature at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Indirect Purchaser Action Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint without prejudice to her ability to revive the Motion if the Court determines that the two cases should remain separate actions. At the April 26, 2010 hearing, the Court will also address its Order to Show Cause. On or before March 19, 2010, Defendant shall file its Reply to the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff's Response to the Order to Show Cause. (Order Decertifying Classes Without Prejudice to Being Renewed; Inviting Further Motions, Docket Item No. 303.) 2 1 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C. Conclusion The Court VACATES the Case Management Conference scheduled for February 22, 2010. In its Order addressing Defendant's anticipated dispositive motion, the Court will set a further Case Management Conference, if necessary. Dated: February 17, 2010 JAMES WARE United States District Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Alreen Haeggquist email@example.com Andrew S. Friedman firstname.lastname@example.org Bonny E. Sweeney email@example.com Brian P Murray firstname.lastname@example.org Caroline Nason Mitchell email@example.com Craig Ellsworth Stewart firstname.lastname@example.org David Craig Kiernan email@example.com Elaine A. Ryan firstname.lastname@example.org Francis Joseph Balint email@example.com Helen I. Zeldes firstname.lastname@example.org Jacqueline Sailer email@example.com John J. Stoia firstname.lastname@example.org Michael D Braun email@example.com Michael D. Braun firstname.lastname@example.org Michael Tedder Scott email@example.com Paula Michelle Roach firstname.lastname@example.org Robert Allan Mittelstaedt email@example.com Roy A. Katriel firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas J. Kennedy email@example.com Thomas Robert Merrick firstname.lastname@example.org Todd David Carpenter email@example.com United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: February 17, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy