Hendricks v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Filing 53

MOTION for Leave to File Response to Objections to Declaration of Jan Mendel filed by AT&T Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Response to Objections to Declaration of Jan Mendel, # 3 Declaration of Jan Mendel (Supplemental), # 4 Declaration of Kevin S. Ranlett)(Ranlett, Kevin) (Filed on 10/19/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 Donald M. Falk (CA Bar No. 150256) dfalk@mayerbrown.com MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2000 Facsimile: (650) 331-2060 5 6 7 8 9 John Nadolenco (CA Bar No. 181128) jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 16 PATRICK HENDRICKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, 17 18 19 20 vs. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, Defendant. Case No. CV 11-00409-CRB DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY LLC’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE Date: October 21, 2011 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 8 Honorable Charles R. Breyer 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT ATTM’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE, CASE NO. CV 11-00409 (CRB) 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), defendant AT&T Mobility LLC (“ATTM”) moves for 2 leave to file a response to plaintiff Patrick Hendricks’s objection (Dkt. No. 48) to the declaration of 3 Jan Mendel (Dkt. No. 42-2). Hendricks contends that Ms. Mendel’s declaration should be struck 4 on the ground that she lacks personal knowledge for her testimony, and in the alternative requests 5 discovery into ATTM’s arbitrations with other consumers for the past eight years. The proposed 6 response—which is attached to this motion—explains why the objection should be overruled and 7 the request for discovery denied, and would aid the Court in resolving Hendricks’s objection. 8 9 10 WHEREFORE, ATTM’s motion for leave to file a response to Hendricks’s objections to the Mendel declaration should be granted. MAYER BROWN LLP Dated: October 19, 2011 11 By: /s/ Kevin S. Ranlett____________ 12 John Nadolenco (CA Bar No. 181128) jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 13 14 15 16 Donald M. Falk (CA Bar No. 150256) dfalk@mayerbrown.com MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2000 Facsimile: (650) 331-2060 17 18 19 20 Attorneys for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Of counsel: Andrew J. Pincus (pro hac vice) Evan M. Tager Archis A. Parasharami (pro hac vice) Kevin S. Ranlett (pro hac vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 263-3000 Fax: (202) 263-3300 28 1 DEFENDANT ATTM’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE, CASE NO. CV 11-00409 (CRB)

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?