Yuncker v. Pandora Media, Inc.

Filing 81

ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC) GRANTING AS MODIFIED ORDER RE: MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMITS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/17/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2013)

Case3:11-md-02264-JSW Document57 Filed05/16/13 Page1 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452
MICHAEL H. RUBIN, State Bar No. 214636
EVAN M. W. STERN, State Bar No. 264851
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
BRIAN M. WILLEN
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
(Additional Counsel listed on Signature Pages)

13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16
17
18

In re Google Inc., Android Consumer Privacy
Litigation

MDL No. 2264

19
20

This Document Relates to

21

ALL CASES

22

TROY YUNCKER, EDGAR DURAN, ROBERT
HODSON, AND RALPH PETROSINO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

23
24

Plaintiff,

25
26
27
28

CASE No. 11 2264 JSW

v.
PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,
Defendant.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMIT

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: MODIFICATION OF
PAGE LIMIT AS MODIFIED HEREIN
Case No. 11 3113 JSW

Case3:11-md-02264-JSW Document57 Filed05/16/13 Page2 of 7

1
2
3

The parties in the above-entitled actions, by and through their respective attorneys,
hereby stipulate to the following:
WHEREAS, plaintiffs in the Android action have filed a Second Amended Class Action

4

Complaint (“SAC”) that alleges claims for relief against defendant Google acting in multiple

5

capacities;

6
7
8
9
10

WHEREAS, the Android action involves nine separate cases coordinated in this Court for
pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation;
WHEREAS, plaintiff in the Yuncker action has filed an SAC that alleges multiple
separate claims for relief against defendant Pandora;
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2013, the Court ordered that Google’s and Pandora’s responses

11

to the SACs filed in their respective actions, including any Motions to Dismiss, shall be filed on

12

or before May 30, 2013, that if Google and/or Pandora chooses to file a Motion to Dismiss,

13

Plaintiffs’ Oppositions shall be filed on or before June 20, 2013, and that Google’s and

14

Pandora’s Replies to Plaintiffs’ Oppositions shall be filed and served on or before July 8, 2013;

15
16
17

WHEREAS, Google and Pandora intend to file a Motion to Dismiss each of the claims
asserted in the respective SACs;
WHEREAS, this Court’s Civil Standing Orders specify that a brief in support of, in

18

opposition to, or in reply to a motion, except motions for summary judgment or claim

19

construction, shall not exceed 15 pages;

20

WHEREAS, Google’s Motion to Dismiss will require separate arguments as to the

21

sufficiency of each of the claims asserted in the Android SAC, as well as separate arguments

22

relating to the different capacities in which Google has been sued, which arguments collectively

23

involve complex areas of federal and state law and will require space beyond the 15-page default

24

limit set by this Court’s Civil Standing Order;

25

WHEREAS, Pandora’s Motion to Dismiss will require separate arguments as to the

26

sufficiency of each of the claims asserted in the Yuncker SAC, including as those claims apply to

27

three newly added plaintiffs who used different versions of the Pandora mobile applications,

28

-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMIT

Case3:11-md-02264-JSW Document57 Filed05/16/13 Page3 of 7

1

which arguments involve complex areas of law and will require space beyond the 15-page

2

default limit set by this Court’s Civil Standing Order;

3

WHEREAS, the parties to the Android and Yuncker actions all stipulated to extend the

4

page limitations for the first Motions to Dismiss filed in their respective actions and the Court

5

entered those stipulations (Android Dkt No. 28, Yuncker Dkt No. 53);

6

WHEREAS, counsel for Google, Pandora, and the Android and Yuncker plaintiffs have

7

met and conferred, and agree that the page limit for both Google’s and Pandora’s Motions to

8

Dismiss, plaintiffs’ Oppositions to both Google’s and Pandora’s motions, and both Google’s and

9

Pandora’s Replies in support of their respective motions should be increased;

10

IT IS SO AGREED that:

11

(1) Google and Pandora shall both be permitted to file a brief in support of their

12
13

respective Motions to Dismiss not to exceed 25 pages;
(2) Plaintiffs in both the Android and Yuncker actions shall be permitted to file

14

Opposition briefs in response to the Motions to Dismiss in their respective actions not

15

to exceed 25 pages; and

16
17

(3) Google and Pandora shall both be permitted to file Reply briefs in support of their
respective Motions to Dismiss not to exceed 15 pages.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMIT

Case3:11-md-02264-JSW Document57 Filed05/16/13 Page4 of 7

1

DATE: May 16, 2013

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

/s/ Michael H. Rubin
David H. Kramer
Michael H. Rubin
Evan M. W. Stern
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Email:
[e-mail]
Email:
[e-mail]

12

Brian M. Willen
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]

13

Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.

9
10
11

14

DATE: May 16, 2013

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

/s/ William M. Audet
William M. Audet
Jonas P. Mann
AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
221 Main Street
Suite 1460
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Email:
[e-mail]
Interim Class Counsel

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMIT

Case3:11-md-02264-JSW Document57 Filed05/16/13 Page5 of 7

1

DATE: May 16, 2013

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative
Classes in
Case No. 11 CV 3113 JSW

10
11

/s/ Joseph J. Siprut
JOSEPH J. SIPRUT (Pro Hac Vice)
ALEKSANDRA M. S. VOLD
PETER K. CARLSON
17 N. State Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312/948-9212
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

DATE: May 16, 2013

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

/s/ Tyler Griffin Newby
Tyler Griffin Newby
Laurence F. Pulgram
Sebastian Elan Kaplan
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street
Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Email:
[e-mail]
Email:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Pandora Media, Inc. in
Case No. 11 CV 3113 JSW

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMIT

Case3:11-md-02264-JSW Document57 Filed05/16/13 Page6 of 7

1
2
3
4

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS SO
The Court is familiar with the facts of this case and issues presented. The Court will grant the
ORDERED.
request for additional pages, but it does not find good cause to grant twenty-five pages.
Accordingly, the opening and opposition briefs shall not exceed twenty pages.
The replies shall not exceed twelve pages.
May
SIGNED this ____ day of ______________, 2013.
17th

5
__________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs in each of these cases shall file red-lined versions of the
complaint by no later than May 31, 2013.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: MODIFICATION OF PAGE LIMIT