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

Filing 18

Filed order (STEPHEN S. TROTT and RICHARD A. PAEZ): Petitioners’ motion to seal portions of the excerpts of record is granted. Respondents’ motion to seal portions of their supplemental excerpts of record is granted. All documents sealed pursuant to the district court’s January 24, 2012 protective order and referenced in the parties’ motions shall remain under seal. The motion of the Chamber of Commerce, et al., for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners is granted. The Clerk shall file the brief submitted on November 14, 2013. Petitioners’ motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition for permission to appeal is granted. Petitioners’ November 25, 2013 reply has been filed. The court, in its discretion, denies the petition for permission to appeal the district court’s October 24, 2013 order granting class action certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). [8938198] (AF)

FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
__________________________________

JAN 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

No. 13-80223
D.C. No. 5:11-cv-02509-LHK
Northern District of California,
San Jose

SIDDHARTH HARIHARAN; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Respondents,

ORDER

v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Petitioners.

Before: TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners’ motion to seal portions of the excerpts of record is granted.
Respondents’ motion to seal portions of their supplemental excerpts of record is
granted. All documents sealed pursuant to the district court’s January 24, 2012
protective order and referenced in the parties’ motions shall remain under seal.
The motion of the Chamber of Commerce, et al., for leave to file an amicus
curiae brief in support of petitioners is granted. The Clerk shall file the brief
submitted on November 14, 2013.

KS/MOATT

Petitioners’ motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition for
permission to appeal is granted. Petitioners’ November 25, 2013 reply has been
filed.
The court, in its discretion, denies the petition for permission to appeal the
district court’s October 24, 2013 order granting class action certification. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(f); Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005) (per
curiam).

KS/MOATT

2