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)

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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

.