Smith v. eBay Corporation et al

Filing 66

Notice of Questions for Hearing. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 21, 2012. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
CHARLOTTE SMITH,

10

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12

No. C 10-03825 JSW

v.

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING

EBAY CORPORATION, ET AL.,

13

Defendant.
/

14
15

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF

16

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON MAY 25, 2012,

17

AT 9:00 A.M.:

18

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

19

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

20

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

21

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

22

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

23

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

24

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

25

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel

26

attorneys who are

27
28

1

working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained

2

herein.

3

The parties each shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions:

4

1.

Defendants assume that the tied product market is the “market for payment

5

systems for use in online auctions.” However, Plaintiffs make reference to

6

various markets in their Second Amended Complaint. (See, e.g. SAC ¶¶ 23-24

7

(online auction market), 30 (Market for online payment systems for use with

8

online auctions), 34 (market for online payment services); see also Opp. Br. at

9

2:24 (online auction/payment market), 7:24 (referencing online payment
method).) With respect to their tying claim, the Court requests that Plaintiffs

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

clarify how they define the tying product market and the tied product market.

12

a.

What is Plaintiffs’ best argument that the allegations in the SAC, if

13

accepted as true, show harm to competition in the tied product market as

14

they define that market?

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 21, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2