"The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation"

Filing 690

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF by Judge James Ware denying 687 Motion (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2011) Modified on 10/25/2011 (tsh, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION NO. C 05-00037 JW The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 12 13 / 14 15 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Administrative Motion Regarding Seven Motions 16 Renoticed by Plaintiffs. (hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 687.) Defendant moves the Court to 17 take one of several forms of action in response to a number of Motions that were renoticed by 18 Plaintiffs in response to the Court’s September 27, 2011 Order,1 on the ground that the “record that 19 Plaintiffs have ‘renoticed’ is both over- and under-inclusive.” (Motion at 2.) 20 Upon review, the Court does not find good cause to take any of the forms of action requested 21 by Defendant. In its September 27 Order, the Court specifically identified a “number of pending 22 Motions relating to class certification in this case,” and instructed the parties to “terminate[] and 23 renotice[]” each of those pending Motions “[i]n light of the Court’s grant of additional time for the 24 parties to complete [certain] Supplemental Expert Reports, and in order to control its own docket.” 25 (September 27 Order at 1-2.) The Court further explained that “[u]pon renoticing, the Motions 26 remain under submission pending the parties’ Supplemental Briefs.” (Id. at 2.) Pursuant to the 27 1 28 (Order Requiring Parties to Renotice Pending Motions, hereafter, “September 27 Order,” Docket Item No. 680.) 1 Court’s September 27 Order, Plaintiffs renoticed the pending Motions for November 28, 2011.2 2 (See Docket Item No. 686.) Thus, Plaintiffs have complied with the Court’s September 27 Order. 3 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Administrative Relief is DENIED. 4 5 6 Dated: October 24, 2011 7 JAMES WARE United States District Chief Judge 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 27 As previously discussed, the Motions are taken under submission without oral argument. However, the Court reserves the right to have additional hearing upon review of the briefs submitted to date. 28 2 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: 2 Alexandra Senya Bernay xanb@rgrdlaw.com Alreen Haeggquist alreenh@zhlaw.com Andrew S. Friedman afriedman@bffb.com Bonny E. Sweeney bonnys@rgrdlaw.com Brian P Murray bmurray@murrayfrank.com Carmen Anthony Medici cmedici@rgrdlaw.com Caroline Nason Mitchell cnmitchell@jonesday.com Craig Ellsworth Stewart cestewart@jonesday.com David Craig Kiernan dkiernan@jonesday.com Elaine A. Ryan eryan@bffb.com Francis Joseph Balint fbalint@bffb.com George A. Riley griley@omm.com Helen I. Zeldes helenz@zhlaw.com Jacqueline Sailer jsailer@murrayfrank.com John J. Stoia jstoia@rgrdlaw.com Michael D Braun service@braunlawgroup.com Michael D. Braun service@braunlawgroup.com Michael Tedder Scott michaelscott@jonesday.com Robert Allan Mittelstaedt ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com Roy Arie Katriel rak@katriellaw.com Thomas J. Kennedy tkennedy@murrayfrank.com Thomas Robert Merrick tmerrick@rgrdlaw.com Todd David Carpenter tcarpenter@bffb.com 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 Dated: October 24, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By: /s/ JW Chambers Susan Imbriani Courtroom Deputy