Simon v. Adzilla, Inc [New Media] et al

Filing 14

MOTION to Relate Case CV-08-05113 TEH filed by Core Communications, Inc.. (Unruh, Rocky) (Filed on 4/21/2009)

Simon v. Adzilla, Inc [New Media] et al

Doc. 14

Case3:09-cv-00879-MMC Document14

Filed04/21/09 Page1 of 2

2
1 2 SchiffHardin LLP Rocky N. Unruh, Bar No. 84049 [e-mail] One Market, Spear Street Tower Thirty-Second Floor SanFrancisco,CA 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Arent Fox LLP Michael B. Hazzard (pro hac vice application to be filed) [e-mail] 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5339 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant CORE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiffs, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendants. 28
SCHIFF HARDIN

4

5
6 7 8 9 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DAN VALENTINE, et al. v. NEBUAD, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. CVO8-051 13 TEH ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

SUSAN SIMON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADZILLA, INC. (NEW MEDIA), et al,

Case No. CVO9-00879 MMC

LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

ADMiNISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Dockets.Justia.com

_____,

Case3:09-cv-00879-MMC Document14

Filed04/21/09 Page2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
SCHIFF HARDIN
SAN FRANCISCO

Pursuant to Civil L. R. 3-12, defendant Core Communications, Inc., a named defendant in Simon, et at. v. Adzitla, Inc. et at., Case No. C09-00879 MMC, moves to have that case deemed related to an earlier-filed case in this district, Valentine, et al. v. NebuAd, Inc., et at., Case No. CV-08-05 113 TEH ("Valentine"). These cases should be deemed related for the following reasons: 1. Although the cases involve different parties, they are both class actions brought by the same attorneys, alleging the same seven causes of action, arising out of "substantially the same event," namely, the alleged interception of plaintiffs' Internet transmissions using technologies that permit "Deep Packet Inspection." Compare Complaint in Valentine, p. 2 at ¶ 1 with Complaint in Simon, p. 3 at ¶ 3. Indeed, apart from the differences in the names of the parties, the complaints in both cases are nearly identical. 2. These two cases raise novel legal claims challenging the alleged use of innovative technology to collect information from Internet transmissions, and for these reasons, it appears likely there would be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense, and a risk of conflicting results, if they were heard by different judges. For these reasons, the Simon case should be deemed related to the earlier-filed Valentine action, and reassigned to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson. Respectfully submitted, Dated: April 2009 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP

By N. Unruh Attorneys for Defendant CORE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
SF\9337929.2

LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

-2ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED