Garvey et al v. Kissmetrics et al

Filing 59

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS: Case referred to Private ADR. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 5/16/2012. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

RANDALL W. EDWARDS (S.B. #179053)
[e-mail]
KATHERINE M. ROBISON (S.B. #221556)
[e-mail]
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

9

VICTOR JIH (S.B. #186515)
[e-mail]
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

10

Attorneys for Defendant Hulu, LLC

11

(Additional counsel listed on signature page)

7
8

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
15
16
Case No. CV 11-03764 LB
17
18
19

IN RE HULU PRIVACY LITIGATION

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

20

Jury Trial Demanded

21

Date Filed: July 29, 2011
Trial Date: Not Set
Judge:
Hon. Laurel Beeler

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIP. RE ADR PROCESS
CASE NO. CV 11 3764

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR Local Rule 3-5, Defendant Hulu, LLC and

2

Plaintiffs Joseph Garvey, Stacey Tsan, Susan Couch, Cristina Garza, Concepcion Jauregui, and

3

Silviano Moncada hereby enter the following stipulation regarding ADR process in this litigation:

4

WHEREAS, plaintiffs Joseph Garvey and Stacey Tsan (collectively, “Garvey Plaintiffs”)

5

filed Case No. C 11-03764 LB in the Northern District of California asserting class action

6

allegations on July 29, 2011 (“Garvey”);

7

WHEREAS, plaintiffs Susan Couch, Cristina Garza, Concepcion Jauregui, and Silviano

8

Moncada (collectively, “Couch Plaintiffs,” and collectively with the Garvey Plaintiffs,

9

“Plaintiffs”) filed Case No. 4:11-cv-05606 in the Central District of California asserting class

10

action allegations on September 14, 2011 (“Couch”);

11

WHEREAS, Couch was transferred to the Northern District of California to be

12

consolidated with Garvey and on February 27, 2012, the Court consolidated Couch and Garvey

13

(Docket No. 38);

14
15

WHEREAS, on January 5, 2012, Hulu filed an ADR Certification with this Court (Docket
No. 33);

16

WHEREAS, on January 5, 2012, the Garvey Plaintiffs and Hulu filed a Stipulation and

17

[Proposed] Order Selecting ADR Process, selecting court-run mediation to occur after the Court

18

decides defendant’s motion(s) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (Docket No. 34);

19
20

WHEREAS, on January 18, 2012, this court entered the parties’ proposed order and
thereby referred the matter to the Court’s ADR Program (Docket No. 35);

21
22

WHEREAS, on March 28, 2012, each of the Couch Plaintiffs filed an ADR Certification
(Docket Nos. 45, 46, 47, 52);

23

WHEREAS, on April 3, 2012 and April 24, 2012, counsel for each party participated in

24

conference calls with Robin W. Siefkin, ADR Program Staff Attorney, to discuss the referral to

25

the ADR Program (Docket No. 44);

26

WHEREAS the parties agreed during the discussions with Ms. Siefkin that they would

27

prefer to participate in private mediation in lieu of mediation through the Court’s ADR Program;

28

///
-1-

JOINT STIP. RE ADR PROCESS
CASE NO. CV 11 3764

1
2
3
4
5

Therefore, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR Local Rule 3-5, Hulu and
Plaintiffs hereby stipulate and agree that:
The January 18, 2012 order referring this matter to mediation through the Court’s ADR
Program should be vacated by this Court;
In lieu of participating in the Court’s ADR Program, the parties shall participate in private

6

mediation within ninety (90) days of the Court issuing its ruling on Hulu’s motion(s) under

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, subject to the mediator’s availability.

8
9

Dated: May 2, 2012

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

10
By: /s/ Randall W. Edwards
Randall W. Edwards
Attorneys for Defendant Hulu, LLC

11
12
13
14

Dated: May 2, 2012

PARISI & HAVENS LLP

15
16
17

By: /s/ David C. Parisi
David C. Parisi
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Joseph Garvey and
Stacey Tsan and the putative class

18
19
20
21
22

Scott A. Kamber (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
David A. Stampley (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
KAMBERLAW, LLC
100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

23
24
25
26

Deborah Kravitz (SBN 275661)
[e-mail]
KAMBERLAW LLP
141 North Street
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

27
28

David C. Parisi (SBN 162248)
[e-mail]
-2-

JOINT STIP. RE ADR PROCESS
CASE NO. CV 11 3764

1

Suzanne Havens Beckman (SBN 188814)
[e-mail]
Azita Moradmand (SBN 260271)
[e-mail]
PARISI & HAVENS LLP
15233 Valleyheart Drive
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

2
3
4
5
6

Counsel for Plaintiffs Joseph Garvey and
Stacey Tsan

7
8

Dated: May 2, 2012

STRANGE & CARPENTER

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

By: /s/ Brian R. Strange
Brian R. Strange
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Susan Couch, Cristina
Carza, Concepcion Jauregui, and Silviano
Moncada and the putative class
Brian R. Strange (Cal. Bar. No. 103252)
[e-mail]
STRANGE & CARPENTER
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Joseph A. Malley (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH A. MALLEY
1045 North Zang Blvd.
Dallas, Texas 75208
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiffs Susan Couch, Cristina
Carza, Concepcion Jauregui, and Silviano
Moncada

23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

JOINT STIP. RE ADR PROCESS
CASE NO. CV 11 3764

1

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION

2
3

Pursuant to General Order 45, I, Randall W. Edwards, hereby attest that

4

concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from David C. Parisi and Brian R.

5

Strange.

6
7
8

Dated: May 2, 2012

By: /s/Randall W. Edwards
Randall W. Edwards

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

JOINT STIP. RE ADR PROCESS
CASE NO. CV 11 3764

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

[PROPOSED]
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED THAT
1. The January 18, 2012 order referring this matter to mediation through the Court’s
ADR Program (Docket No. 35) is vacated;
2. In lieu of participating in the Court’s ADR Program, the parties shall participate in
private mediation within ninety (90) days of the Court issuing its ruling on Hulu’s
motion(s) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, subject to the mediator’s
availability.

9
16
DATED: May___, 2012

10
11
12

Hon. LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

JOINT STIP. RE ADR PROCESS
CASE NO. CV 11 3764