Siddharth Hariharan, et al v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al

Filing 17

Filed (ECF) Petitioner Google Inc. Motion for miscellaneous relief [Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Petition for Leave to Appeal Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)]. Date of service: 11/25/2013. [8878285] (DMF)

Download PDF
Case No. 13-80223 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION Petition for permission to appeal from the United States District Court Northern District of California The Honorable Lucy H. Koh, Presiding Case No. 5:11-2509-LHK MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23(f) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27, petitioners respectfully move for leave to file the accompanying reply brief in support of the petition for leave to appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). This Court routinely grants leave to file reply briefs in support of Rule 23(f) petitions. See, e.g., Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 13-80002; Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Brickley, No. 13-80008; Kress v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, No. 13-80009; Ordonez v. Radio Shack, No. 13-80015; Cabral v. Supple, LLC, 1 No. 13-80030; Henderson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 13-80073. Plaintiffs’ counsel nonetheless have indicated that they do not consent to this motion. Good cause exists for the filing of a reply brief here. As explained more fully in the reply, respondents’ opposition to the Rule 23(f) petition misstates both the facts of this case and the basis of the district court’s order. Moreover, the reply will assist the Court in understanding the numerous important, complex, and unsettled issues of law implicated by the district court’s order and the need for immediate review by this Court. Accordingly, petitioners respectfully request that the Court grant leave to file the accompanying reply brief. CONCLUSION The motion for leave to file a reply brief should be granted. KEKER & VAN NEST LLP Dated: November 25, 2013 By: /s/ Robert A. Van Nest Robert A. Van Nest Daniel Purcell Eugene M. Paige Justina Sessions 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Edward D. Johnson Lee H. Rubin Donald M. Falk MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 300 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2057 Facsimile: (650) 331-4557 Attorneys for Defendant and Petitioner GOOGLE INC. Dated: November 25, 2013 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP By: /s/ Michael F. Tubach Michael F. Tubach George Riley Christina J. Brown Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 Attorneys For Defendant and Petitioner APPLE INC. Dated: November 25, 2013 JONES DAY By: /s/ David C. Kiernan David C. Kiernan Robert A. Mittelstaedt Craig A. Waldman 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 Attorneys for Defendant and Petitioner ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. Dated: November 25, 2013 MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP By: /s/ Gregory P. Stone Gregory P. Stone Bradley S. Phillips Gregory M. Sergi John P. Mittelbach 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Attorneys for Defendant and Petitioner INTEL CORPORATION. ATTESTATION: The filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from all signatories. Case No. 13-80223 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on November 25, 2013. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. s/ Donald M. Falk .

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?