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)

1
2
3
4

Donald M. Falk (CA Bar No. 150256)
[e-mail]
MAYER BROWN LLP
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6
7
8
9

John Nadolenco (CA Bar No. 181128)
[e-mail]
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
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)
[e-mail]
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

13
14
15
16

Donald M. Falk (CA Bar No. 150256)
[e-mail]
MAYER BROWN LLP
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

28
1
DEFENDANT ATTM’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO
OBJECTION TO REPLY EVIDENCE, CASE NO. CV 11-00409 (CRB)