Davis v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Filing 169


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MICHAEL E. DAVIS, et al., 10 Case No. 10-cv-03328-RS Plaintiffs, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California v. 12 ELECTRONIC ARTS INC., 13 Defendant. ORDER VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING DATE, AND DIRECTING ADDITIONAL MEET AND CONFER 14 15 Plaintiffs seek a 90-day extension of the briefing schedule and hearing date for their class 16 17 certification motion.1 In the meet and confer process, defendant expressed a willingness to 18 stipulate to such an extension, provided, (1) the parties reached agreement on a briefing schedule 19 that did not compress defendant’s response time, (2) plaintiffs did not represent to the court that 20 extension was made necessary by any act or omission on defendant’s part, and, (3) in the event the 21 Supreme Court grants the pending petition for a writ of certiorari , the parties would jointly seek a 22 stay of all trial court proceedings, including discovery. 23 Any rejection by plaintiff of the first condition would have been unreasonable. Given that 24 a stipulation would not have required argument as to why an extension was necessary, rejection of 25 the second condition likewise was unreasonable. Even assuming plaintiffs reasonably could have 26 objected to the third proposed condition, this remains a simple scheduling matter that the parties 27 1 28 Although plaintiffs invoke Civil Rule 7-11, such requests are governed by Civil Local Rule 6-3. 1 could and should have resolved between themselves, without court intervention. Counsel are 2 directed to redouble their efforts in all future meet and confer negotiations to ensure that this 3 matter is litigated in a professional manner that preserves court resources and minimizes the costs 4 to the parties. 5 The present briefing schedule and hearing date are vacated. The parties shall meet and 6 confer and jointly submit a proposed new briefing schedule and hearing date that extends the time 7 by approximately 90 days, taking into account all reasonable scheduling concerns, and preserving 8 the length of defendant’s period for filing opposition. In the event the Supreme Court grants the 9 pending petition, the parties shall then meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement on whether a stay is warranted at that time. In the event the parties cannot agree on the propriety of a stay, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 defendant may bring a motion at that juncture. While such a motion would not ordinarily 12 constitute a “miscellaneous administrative matter,” it shall be filed and opposed under the page 13 length and timing requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-11. No reply brief shall be filed and no 14 hearing shall be set or held. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 21 Dated: March 16, 2016 ______________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE NO. 2 10-cv-03328-RS

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?